beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and agreed with the victim C, and that part of the medical expenses of the victim E are borne by the Defendant is considered in favor of the Defendant.
However, the defendant was punished for the same crime, and the crime of this case did not cause a traffic accident in violation of the signal while driving a motor vehicle with a tentative name that is not covered by mandatory insurance without a license and does not take necessary measures, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak. At the time of this case, at the time of this case, the defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 4 million on October 2, 201, which caused a traffic accident in violation of the signal while driving a motor vehicle without a license, and did not take necessary measures, and was in violation of the signal, and was in the course of the above fine. The degree of the injury suffered by the victims of the traffic accident of this case is not weak, and an agreement was reached between the victim E and the victim up to the trial.
In light of the circumstances such as the fact that there is no circumstance to deem the above victim to be the Defendant’s wife and her wife, when taking account of various sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s imprisonment for up to eight months is too unreasonable.
2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[2] However, it is obvious that the crime of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the context of “2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving)” column of “21:15 on Nov. 4, 2013” column of “2.14 on Nov. 4, 2013.” Thus, it is apparent that it is a clerical error in the context of “2. 14 on Nov. 4, 2013. 20:15 on Nov.
.