2014No3980 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

A

Prosecutor

Lee In-bok (Institution of Prosecution) and Park Young-young (Public Trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney H

Busan District Court Decision 2014Ra1105 Decided October 22, 2014

January 30, 2015

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant, 6 years of suspended execution, 2 years of alcohol treatment lectures, 24 hours of attending lectures, and 40 hours of community service order, which is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

The revised Road Traffic Act has strengthened criminal punishment by raising the statutory punishment for a serious crime that may endanger the life and body of himself/herself and others. In particular, when a person who has been punished for a drunk driving on at least two occasions drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again, a provision was newly established that the person who has been punished for a drunk driving shall be punished by imprisonment for at least one year but not more than three years or by a fine not less than ten million won but not more than ten million won. Since January 15, 2004, the crime of this case is deemed to have been driven a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.163% of the blood alcohol concentration. In light of the defendant's alcohol level or the risk of drunk driving, it is recognized that the crime of this case had not been punished by imprisonment for rape at the Busan District Court on June 11, 201 to be punished by imprisonment for at least three years, and that the defendant has already been punished by a fine for at least three years, including a prison term, and that the defendant has already been punished by a suspended sentence.

On the other hand, it is also recognized that the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided, the crime of this case did not cause any additional damage, such as traffic accidents, etc., which have been committed, the fact that there has been no previous convictions, the fact that the crime of this case had been committed voluntarily, and that community service activities are constantly being conducted, and the risk of recidivism is recognized, even if the defendant's recidivism is somewhat somewhat recognized, it would be possible to expect improvement through the order to attend the alcohol therapy and the order to provide community service, etc., which the court below issued along with the suspension of execution.

Considering the aforementioned circumstances comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and various circumstances that may serve as conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in the form of a judge

Judges Cho Jong-soo

Judges Jin-Constition