(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.06.02 2017노432 | 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) 청주지방법원 2017.06.02 2017노432

도로교통법위반(음주운전)등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor (1) The lower court convicted the Defendant of the failure to drive the motor device without obtaining a license during the instant crime, but sentenced to imprisonment not prescribed by the law, and thus did not concurrently impose a fine or penal detention on the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is excessively unhued and unreasonable.

B. The above punishment that the court below decided against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In determining the Prosecutor’s assertion of violation of law, the instant crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseless driving) are conceptually concurrent relationships. Therefore, the lower court’s determination of the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-driving) by punishing the person subject to punishment heavier than the said punishment on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be subject to the application of a legitimate law. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion of this issue is without merit.

3. We also examine the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s argument regarding the wrongful argument of sentencing.

The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment in consideration of the following circumstances confirmed through the overall purport of records and pleadings:

The favorable circumstances: The defendant reflects the crime, and the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant who drives a bicycle, not a motor vehicle: the defendant has already been punished for driving a motor device, and the defendant again commits the crime of this case even though he is a repeated crime, so the risk of recidivism is extremely high, and thus, it is inevitable to declare the crime of this case. However, even if the judgment of the court below is made by gathering all circumstances that can be the conditions for the sentencing confirmed through the whole record, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion.

assessment; or

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.04.28 2016노6423

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.31 2018노376

-대법원 2016.07.07 2016도4595

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.17 2017노1220

-제주지방법원 2016.08.25 2016노420