특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act even before the filing of the appeal, and the Defendant was negligent in driving under the influence of alcohol again and neglecting to drive under the influence of alcohol at the front of the front time, resulting in an injury to the victim D and F, and left the site without taking necessary measures, such as immediately stopping the damaged vehicle and providing relief to the victim, and the nature of the crime is poor. The Defendant did not oppose the fact that he did not deny the crime that he did not cause a traffic accident, and the Defendant did not agree with the victims and did not make any efforts to reach an agreement. In light of the fact that the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year, two years of imprisonment, one community service order, 120 hours, and forty hours of an order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too unfford and unreasonable.
2. Even when considering the above circumstances alleged by the Prosecutor, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s failure to have any other criminal records other than the one-time fine, the victims’ injury is not excessive, the taxi that the Defendant driven was admitted to the Federation of Passenger Transport Business Associations, the Defendant agreed with the victims in the trial, the Defendant’s character and conduct and environment, the background and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is groundless.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.