beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B’s punishment (criminal KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable (the period for submitting an appeal is not included in the period for submitting an appeal (Article 156-2(4) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure) even though the Defendant has lawfully received the notification of receipt of litigation records and the notice of appointment of counsel from this court on January 11, 2017, and has lawfully received the notification of the appointment of counsel from the court, and until January 16, 2017, the period for submitting an appeal is not included in the period for submitting an appeal (Article 156-2(4) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). However, since the grounds for appeal are indicated in the petition of appeal, it is deemed that the reason for appeal has been submitted within a lawful period of time). (b) Each sentence of the court below by the prosecutor (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, two years of suspension of execution, community service order two years, 80 hours, and 3 million won of fine).
B. Determination of the Road Traffic Act requires a person who intends to establish and operate a driving school to strictly meet the qualification requirements, taking into account the risks of traffic caused by the driving of a motor vehicle, and the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act prohibiting such unregistered driving education is not to be somewhat less than those of the Defendants’ criminal liability.
Defendant
A had an unqualified instructor be engaged in driving education for more than 43 million won in terms of introduction fees, and A had an unqualified instructor receive more than 43 million won in terms of introduction fees.
On the other hand, the Defendants recognized the crime of this case and are against the law.
There is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime against the defendants, and the defendant B is the first crime.
In light of the above circumstances, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have been made within the reasonable scope of discretion, and otherwise, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is to be maintained as it is, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the argument in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.