도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing a public prosecution on the violation of road traffic laws due to the damage of Radddds among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged. The Defendant appealed on the guilty portion, and the dismissal of the indictment became final and conclusive on the ground that both the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal on the dismissal portion of the public prosecution, and that the above indictment was dismissed. Therefore, the scope of the judgment in the instant
2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.
3. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) under favorable circumstances to the Defendant, the Defendant: (b) acknowledged his mistake in the confession of each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant agreed on the victim’s Medrid Co., Ltd. due to the damage and the restoration of damage; (b) the Defendant was diagnosed at the head of the upper line’s fluid; (c) the health condition is not good; and (d) each of the instant crimes was committed under the influence of alcohol without a driver’s license; (d) the Defendant driven a car while under the influence of alcohol; and (e) the Defendant stopped the parking of the vehicle without the driver’s license and stopping of the vehicle immediately after leaving the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant did not take necessary measures on account of the traffic congestion level and alcohol level of the Defendant’s.