도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime due to intellectual disability.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the defendant suffered from a severe disorder and caused a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the following circumstances: although it is recognized that the defendant suffered from a severe disorder and this Qa 44 merely, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime revealed by the records of this case, and in particular, the defendant was aware that he was aware of the fact that he was driving a drinking, and that he was not able to drive a drinking.
does not appear.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant and defense counsel.
B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s wrongful determination of sentencing is against the mistake while committing the crime, and that the instant crime did not lead to a traffic accident, and that the Defendant is in the state of delay of the degree of proof.
However, there are many criminal records prior to the violation of the traffic laws of the same kind, including the criminal records that the defendant had already been punished five times due to drinking or unlicensed driving, and in particular, during the suspended execution period for the same kind of crime, drinking driving is a serious crime threatening the life and body of himself/herself and others. In addition, the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc. and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the oral proceedings, the lower limit of the punishment is given by the court below, compared to the first instance court, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the first trial sentencing do not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).