beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable in light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, and that the victims and the victims have reached an agreement smoothly.
2. The Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence, and subsequently, the Defendant suffered injury for 3 to 8 weeks of medical treatment for the victims, including the above victims, E, F, etc., who were driving freight cars normally driven by negligence while driving 20.23% of blood alcohol concentration within the repeated period while driving 0.23% of 0.23% of alcohol concentration was difficult. The instant traffic accident was solely due to the Defendant’s unilateral negligence, and the Defendant was in a very high amount of alcohol concentration of blood alcohol while driving 200% of alcohol level during the repeated period. The Defendant was injured by a large number of victims, and the crime or the criminal intent is not good.
In addition, the legislative intent of Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to punish a driver who causes bodily injury or death while driving a motor vehicle in a situation where normal driving is impossible due to influence of drinking, etc., so it is necessary to impose strict punishment differently from the case of general traffic accident.
In addition, since the defendant committed the crime of this case only after 2000, since he was punished four times of imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime such as drinking driving, driving without a license, refusal of drinking, and escape vehicles, it is inevitable to punish the defendant strictly because he committed the crime of this case.
However, the defendant agreed with the victim E and F in the court below, and agreed with the victim C in the first instance, and the defendant's vehicle is covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance.