beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering various circumstances against the defendant in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal.
2. Determination is a favorable circumstance for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant’s perception and reflection of the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant’s furning of old-parents with good health.
However, drinking driving is highly likely to threaten another person's life and body, and the punishment for drinking driving has been strengthened by the revision of the Road Traffic Act in 201, and the defendant has been sentenced twice to the same crime (1.5 million won, 3 million won). In particular, on June 20, 2013, the Gwangju High Court sentenced 1 year of imprisonment and 2 years of suspension of execution to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (1.5 million won, 1.5 million won, 1.5 days after being sentenced to the suspension of execution, and 0.168% of blood alcohol concentration. In light of the fact that the defendant's crime of drinking driving was committed by entering into a mandatory insurance vehicle with the central line and the accident caused by the use of a retaining wall against the central line, it is inevitable to punish the defendant accordingly.
In such circumstances, Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has driven a motor vehicle at least twice under the influence of alcohol shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than three years. The court below already rendered a statutory minimum sentence to the defendant in consideration of the favorable circumstances for the defendant, and comprehensively takes into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, home environment, and all other sentencing factors prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the court below's punishment cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, the judgment of the court below is legal.