beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of order to attend a course in the period of eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his mistake, the degree of injury suffered by the victims is relatively excessive, and the fact that the defendant deposited 300,000 won in each of the 300,000 won as the principal of the victims during the trial of the original court by designating the victims as the principal of
However, the crime of this case is deemed to have escaped while driving a motor vehicle while being accompanied by harm to human life and property, and the nature of the crime is grave in light of the contents and circumstances of the crime, alcohol density level at the time of the crime, etc., the defendant was punished twice by a fine due to drinking, and even though he had been punished on six occasions due to a traffic-related crime, he/she committed again the crime of this case; there is no agreement with victims; otherwise, the defendant's age, sex and environment, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment (not less than one year of imprisonment) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing of the Supreme Court in addition to the defendant's age, and the circumstances after the crime, [the person subject to special sentencing] where the illegality in the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is serious [the scope of punishment recommended] [the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for one year to three years (territory area] [the scope of punishment recommended pursuant to multiple crimes], and thus, the court below did not set the minimum sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the pleading is as follows.