Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., an unjust assertion) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (e.g., a fine of five million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the defendant led to confession and reflects, and that the defendant moved to a department that does not have good attendance while making the defendant not to drive illegally again.
However, on June 7, 201, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 8 months due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle), the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Finginginging Vehicle) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Finging Vehicle). In addition, on June 7, 201, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 2 years due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle) in the Gwangju District Court Support for the Manpoon on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Ding Vehicle), but the above judgment of the suspended sentence seems to be not to have serious "the injury of the victim to the Doing
Nevertheless, the Defendant, immediately after the accident, escaped without taking any relief measures against the victim.
On the other hand, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration measured on December 15, 2010 09:36 was 0.021%.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that he did not drink at the time of the accident of this case, and that he drank at his residence after the accident of this case.
Although it is not clear whether the defendant drinks after the accident (if the defendant does not drive under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, it is deemed that there was no reason to escape). If the defendant's assertion, it is impossible to accurately measure the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of the accident, this is not the act of destruction of evidence.
The driver who has recently caused a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol has escaped once again in order to conceal the fact of drinking.