beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (an imprisonment of two years, a suspended sentence of three years, and a 40-hour driving instruction) is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing, determined the sentence by taking into account the various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.
In addition to the circumstances indicated by the court below, there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the court below in the court below, the defendant was driving a drinking, causing traffic accidents, and the police officer's refusal to make a legitimate request for the measurement of drinking, and the records of punishment for driving under drinking and non-licensed driving, etc. are considered appropriate for the defendant to attend the lecture for 40 hours, and the defendant's age, sex, behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, the court below's sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not appear.
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below that “the Defendant, thereby violating the provision prohibiting driving under drinking at least twice” in the third 12th sentence of the judgment of the court below was made by removing it from the court below’s obvious clerical error.
Therefore, it is corrected that it is to delete ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.