logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.03.30 2016노3699
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in 10 months of imprisonment, and forty hours of compliance driving lectures) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Although the Defendant was punished for a crime of violating the Traffic Act on the road, the driving of a motor vehicle has a high level of criticism in that it causes a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle at a high level of 0.234% in his/her blood again while causing a traffic accident.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unfasible and unreasonable, in so doing, considering the following: (a) the Defendant was committed in the course of committing the crime; (b) the degree of injury suffered by the victims is not serious; (c) the victims are not subject to the Defendant’s punishment in agreement with the victims; and (d) the victims are not subject to the Defendant’s punishment.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)) in the application of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)", and it is correct ex officio as it is obvious that the omission of the "1. Selection of each sentence: Selection of each sentence" is a clerical error, and it is corrected ex officio as it is obvious that it is a clerical error.

arrow