도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant is a violation of the Road Traffic Act of April 15, 2016.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of sentence to suspend the execution of imprisonment with labor became final and conclusive on April 16, 2016. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes, since the defendant's violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without Permission) as of April 15, 2016, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without Permission) as of July 19, 2016 and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without Permission) cannot be sentenced to one punishment.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to the records on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended execution for April 16, 2016 to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at the District Court on April 8, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 16, 2016.
Since the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) by April 15, 2016 of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty, the above crime is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) for which the judgment of the court became final and conclusive.
Therefore, the lower court should be sentenced separately from the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on July 19, 2016) and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Driving without a license) committed on April 15, 2016, which was cut down after the date of the said judgment.
Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a single sentence for the Defendant’s offense as of April 15, 2016 and the offense as of July 19, 2016. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant’s allegation pointing this out is with merit.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and therefore, the decision on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is omitted and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not required