도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant’s driving without a license did not result in an accident due to the Defendant’s driving without
The defendant is in the most important position to support his family, including minor children.
However, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension period of execution of the same kind of crime, even though he/she was sentenced to a fine on five occasions due to the same drinking or unlicensed driving crime, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment on one occasion.
It seems that there are no unavoidable reasons for the operation.
In light of such circumstances, the judgment of the court below that selected imprisonment, not a fine, cannot be deemed to be unfair.
In particular, the defendant asserts that the suspended sentence of imprisonment (two years of suspended sentence and two years of suspended sentence in August) as stated in the judgment is invalidated when imprisonment, which is not sentenced to a fine, is sentenced to imprisonment.
However, the first suspended sentence was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year, considering the circumstances that the person had been punished several times for the same kind of crime before, and the favorable circumstances that the person had not been under the influence of driving under the influence of alcohol even though he/she had been punished several times for the same crime, and that the person had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year.
Before the second probation, the defendant did not drive a driver while under the influence of alcohol, but did not do so, but used a substitute driver for driving company without any particular reason, and used a substitute driver for driving company and a traffic driver for driving company to inflict an injury along with the driving. It is judged at the same time in the relationship between the first probation and the latter after Article 37 of the Criminal Code.