도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
1. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant is against whom the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) is against the defendant, the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol 0.192% by the Defendant. The alcohol driving act is required to be strictly prohibited for the order of road traffic and the safety of traffic passengers. In light of the numerical value of blood alcohol concentration at the time of this case and the Defendant’s invasion of the central line during driving and causing an accident of receiving street trees, the Defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism. The Defendant has been punished once and three times of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act only after 200 years, and has been punished one time of imprisonment with prison labor, three times of fine, and six times of suspension of execution. Furthermore, considering that the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being able to punish the Defendant even though he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a repeated term of eight months on September 2010, it is necessary to repeat the crime of this case.
However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable, given that it is recognized that the Defendant’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, since it is recognized that the Defendant’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.