logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.11.17 2016노533
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant shows an attitude against each of the instant crimes while recognizing each of the instant crimes.

However, the current Road Traffic Act stipulates that a person who has violated the prohibition clause of drinking driving twice or more shall be punished more strictly in the case of driving under the influence of alcohol again for the purpose of preventing the driving under the influence of alcohol that threatens the safety of road traffic and ensuring the awareness of it.

The Defendant, even before committing each of the crimes of this case, has been subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving.

As such, even though drinking power has been used several times, the defendant repeats drinking driving, and there is a need to punish the defendant strictly.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow