beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant does not have any factual misunderstanding that the Defendant had a drinking alcohol driver.
Witness
F and G are highly likely to have a bad faith for the Defendant as the other party to the assault case. In light of the fact that it was difficult to see that the Defendant was driving the Oral Ba, since the snow was in a bad condition at the time of the instant case, the said witness’s statement is difficult to believe.
Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court convicted the Defendant of driving alcohol. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. Even if it is found guilty of the illegal driving of nitule in sentencing, in light of the fact that the blood alcohol level is not high and that the assault is against depth, etc., the sentence (2 million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant had already asserted as stated in the grounds of appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the judgment.
Examining the circumstances established by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the defendant driven alba in the state of alba
The judgment of the court below that determined by the person is just and acceptable.
The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
B. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, where there exists an area unique to the first instance judgment regarding the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, it is new after the sentence of the lower judgment.