특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.
2. The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant, and there are special changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing following the pronouncement of the lower judgment on the sole basis of the circumstance that the Defendant asserts.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, considering the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence against the defendant cannot be deemed to be excessive and unfair.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. Where a person who causes several damage to another person by driving a motor vehicle while normal driving is difficult due to the influence of ex officio decision making, each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established for each victim. Since each of the above crimes constitutes several crimes, it is in a commercial concurrent relationship as referred to in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, as stated in Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, received the back part of the horse boom which was driven by negligence while normal driving is difficult due to the driver's negligence, and thereby, he sustained each injury from the victim F who driven the horse and the victim G who was seated after the horse boom.
Thus, the crime of injury resulting from the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against each victim constitutes several crimes, and there is a conceptual concurrence relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act where one act constitutes several crimes.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which punished the above two crimes as a single crime.