상해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing this part of the crime, and thus, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the records on the claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time when he committed a crime in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.), but in light of various circumstances, such as the course and process of the crime, means and method, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime, it does not seem that the defendant had a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and therefore the above argument by the defendant is without merit
B. In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment on September 20, 201 for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) on the grounds of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on September 20, 2011, and committed each of the instant crimes during the repeated period after the enforcement of the sentence was completed on June 3, 2012. The frequency of the instant crime of drunk driving has reached three times, and the blood alcohol concentration was high, even though the Defendant had had had a record of multiple summary trials by free and free and free driving, repeats the instant crime of fraud due to the instantless passenger lane, the victim I and P, and did not agree with the other victims, but on the other hand, the Defendant recognized his/her mistake. The Defendant was covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance policy of the Defendant, and paid part of the amount of injury to the victim of the traffic accident to L, N&C and hospital through the insurance company, the victim of the instant crime did not injure the victim.