The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts did not have driven with speed, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

The court below's sentence (100,000 won of fine) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant has driven beyond the limited speed as stated in the facts charged at the time of this case.

In particular, according to the above evidence, the result of the control by the control equipment was measured that the defendant driven at a speed of 80km/h on the road at a speed of 60km/h, and the control equipment was passed as a result of the inspection and there is no reason to suspect that the control equipment was driven at the time of the measurement.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

The Defendant, as a person of distinguished service to the State, has no particular criminal record, except for a case where a fine has been imposed several times prior to the long time, and there are other grounds for considering the circumstances where the Defendant could not accurately recognize the speed of restriction due to old age, etc. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and subparagraph 1 of Article 156 and Article 17 (3) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fine) concerning facts constituting an offense;