beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to be contrary to the recognition of each of the instant crimes.
However, drinking driving requires strict punishment in consideration of social danger and harm that threatens the life and body of himself/herself and others, the blood alcohol concentration (0.117%) of this case (0.17%), the occurrence of an accident where signal apparatus is damaged due to the drinking driving of the defendant, resulting in traffic danger and impediment, and the defendant already has five times (three times of fine and two times of imprisonment) criminal punishment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) since around 2001 (the road traffic act) (in particular, the defendant has committed each of the crimes of this case again two times of imprisonment after the expiration of the period of probation, and seven months of imprisonment). The court below sentenced a sentence that has the highest punishment that has undergone discretionary mitigation in consideration of already favorable circumstances. After the sentence of the court below, there is no special change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and there is no other special reason to regard the defendant's age, occupation, personality and behavior, family relation, circumstances of the crime, circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances of sentencing in this case, etc.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.