도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. The following are circumstances: (a) the Defendant had a record of having been punished twice due to drunk driving; (b) the Defendant committed a crime of the same kind in the absence of a suspended sentence and re-offending in three months only; (c) the state of his/her drinking is not less than that of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (d) the vehicle operated by the Defendant’s vehicle causes considerable traffic risks, such as a dricking of his/her lethroids;
However, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant appears to reflect in depth the crime of this case, that there is no means of traffic crime other than two times, that there is no history of traffic crime, that in this case, where imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment is finalized, the defendant must be sentenced to a suspended imprisonment, that the defendant must support a young child and his spouse including a young child who has recently been born, that the defendant's family, work partner, and other prisons continuously want the defendant's wife.
Examining the aforementioned circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again ruled as follows.
[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts;