교통사고처리특례법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. In light of the overall circumstances, the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the two-year imprisonment, probation, probation, community service, 160 hours each of 80 hours of compliance driving and alcohol treatment) of the court below is too unreasonable, in light of the fact that the defendant is against the law and the agreement with the victim.
2. The crime of this case was committed with the negligence that the defendant neglected to perform his duty of crypting in the front while driving a passenger vehicle with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.109% while under the influence of alcohol, and caused bodily injury to the victim by shocking the back part of the victim's E-city bus in the front part of the vehicle of the above defendant's vehicle that was sent in front of the traffic in the front bank, thereby causing about two weeks of medical treatment. The crime of this case was committed with a high blood alcohol concentration and causing traffic accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol, it is necessary to strictly prohibit the defendant from driving under the influence of alcohol for the order of road traffic and the safety of the traffic congested, one suspended sentence for the same kind of crime, and even if the defendant had been punished six times of a fine, it is disadvantageous to the victim.
However, in full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstance after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable, and thus, it is recognized that the Defendant’s above assertion is somewhat unreasonable, since it is recognized that the Defendant’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, since the Defendant’s vehicle was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy and the Defendant’s vehicle was not punished by the Defendant, and the victim did not want to engage in drinking again until the vehicle is scrapped, and the Defendant’s vehicle is scrapped.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is reasonable.