beta
Text
Defendant
All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants by the prosecutor (as mentioned in the above paragraph (a) is the same as Defendant A, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and suspended execution, 2 years of community service order, and 80 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A caused a serious result of the death of the victim due to the instant traffic accident, and in particular, it appears that the suffering of young children who are the bereaved family members of the victim seems to have been considerable, and the fact that there is no smooth agreement between the bereaved family members of the victim and the bereaved family members is very unfavorable to the Defendant.
However, the occurrence of the instant traffic accident appears to have been involved by the fault between the victim and his/her bereaved family members who walk the road according to the central separation zone while under the influence of alcohol. At the time, the place where the accident occurred was left at night, which was far away from the crosswalk in the middle of the 4nd line of the road from which the central separation price was set, and the place where the accident occurred is far away from the crosswalk. In general, since the occurrence of the accident is not easy to predict that there is a pedestrian in such a place, the occurrence of the accident is considerably different from that of the defendant. In this respect, the negligence of the defendant cannot be assessed seriously, the victim was unable to take relief measures immediately after the occurrence of the accident, the defendant was subscribed to the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the defendant appears to have made economic compensation to a certain extent. In addition, the defendant was a criminal defendant without any previous criminal record, and it is recognized that there was no evidence that he/she had been discovered in violation of the traffic laws and regulations prior to the occurrence of the accident.
Other arguments in this case including the above circumstances.