(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.11.11 2020노1378 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.11.11 2020노1378

도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

1. The punishment of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment has a number of records of punishment for the same crime. In addition, even though the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a drunk driving in 2017 and was sentenced to a summary order after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment in 2019, the defendant again conducted a drunk driving and a non-licensed driving as stated in the judgment of the court below, as in the crime No. 2020 high-level 315 of the judgment of the court below, and the defendant again conducted a drunk driving and a non-licensed driving as stated in the above crime No. 2020 high-level 315 of the judgment of the court below while being investigated after being identified, it is inevitable to sentence imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant.

However, the court below's punishment seems to be somewhat unreasonable if it examines all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including the fact that the defendant had no record of being sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime or the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant did not repeat the crime of this case in depth, and the social relation seems to be relatively clear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the offense and summary of evidence, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime, and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act; and

1. The Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act.

참조조문

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2020.12.16 2020노1545

-대구지방법원 2020.08.21 2020노1758

-광주지방법원 2019.05.28 2019고단421

-서울동부지방법원 2015.06.04 2015고단788

-대구지방법원 2020.07.23 2020노1513