도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The Defendant appealed on the ground that the sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, two years of probation, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable. However, in light of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice for the same kind of crime, and that there is no change in circumstances in the sentencing elements after the sentence of the lower judgment, even if considering the circumstances that the Defendant transferred the instant vehicle to his own children and fails to operate the instant vehicle any longer, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, citing the reasons indicated in its reasoning.
Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part before the amendment by Act No. 15530 of March 27, 2018, which was made by the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, shall be corrected to the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).
.