logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.02.05 2019노1525
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for not less than 8 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of participation in compliance driving) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, even though he had a history of punishment once due to drunk driving, was driving under the influence of alcohol with a level of 0.141% of blood alcohol level, and caused a traffic accident, resulting in two victims of injury requiring medical treatment for about two weeks, and the quality of the crime is not weak, the Defendant should be strictly punished.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the Defendant to commit an offense; (b) the degree of injury of the victims is minor; (c) the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual agreement with the victims; (d) the Defendant was punished before 17 years from the instant case; (b) the Defendant’s family and branch members wanted the Defendant’s prior wife to be dissipated; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, it is unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the lower court as it is.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal is again ruled as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of

Application of Statutes

1. The former part of Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) regarding the crime in question and Articles 148-2(2)2 and 44 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).

arrow