beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The defendant would not drive without a license again.
The circumstances, etc. are recognized.
However, the defendant was sentenced to a concurrent punishment of 4 months of imprisonment and 3 million won of a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) around October 2016, and was sentenced to a concurrent punishment of 4 months of imprisonment and 3 million won of a fine. The defendant committed the crime without a license again during the period of a repeated crime due to a crime without a license at the same time during the suspension of the execution period due to a crime of drinking driving, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and family environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., comprehensively taking account of the defendant's age, sex and family environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, so it is not recognized that
3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices (Provided, That the first head of the crime in the judgment of the court below, which stated that “the execution of the sentence was terminated on February 12, 2017” of the first head of the crime in the judgment of the court below, is a clerical error of “after the aforementioned judgment was released as a ruling of revocation of detention on February 12, 2017 and the execution of the sentence was terminated on the same day as the above ruling became final and conclusive on March 29, 2017,” and it is evident that “1. prior conviction in the judgment of the court below” column of evidence’s summary of “1. Report on the result of confirmation of the previous conviction in the disposition” was omitted, and thus, it is corrected