beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment (7 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the fact that the accused is divided into and against his criminal act, that the accused has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and that there has been no record of criminal punishment since 2014.
However, drinking driving is a very dangerous crime that may cause unexpected behaviors to another person's life and family as well as the possibility of traffic accident. It is necessary to punish the defendant. The defendant is punished by a fine of 700,000 won due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) in the Daejeon District Court's Red Branch on December 4, 2003. ② on January 22, 2013, the former District Court's military support for the driving of a motor vehicle without obtaining a driver's license, and on the charge of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving). The defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime of this case is considerably high to 0.149%, and the defendant's age and condition seems to be unfair considering the following factors: the defendant's age and condition seems to be unfair.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as follows.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to criminal facts and evidence, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. (3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to criminal facts and evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.