특수재물손괴등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
An application for remedy by an applicant for remedy shall be dismissed.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The punishment sentenced by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service, confiscation) is too unfluent and unfair.
2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle as to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, has the inherent area of the first instance court in the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the ground of unfair sentencing are deemed to have been reflected in the grounds for sentencing of the lower court. In light of the fact that no new sentencing data was submitted in the trial, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unfluent and cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
3. On January 20, 2020, an applicant for a remedy order filed an application for a remedy order with respect to the Defendant on January 20, 2020.
In light of the following: (a) the applicant for the instant compensation order submitted a work ability determination report and a written confirmation confirming that he/she received psychological treatment due to criminal damage, which did not have an ability to work; (b) however, it is insufficient to recognize that the said data alone leads to KRW 30 million; and (c) there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise, the instant case constitutes a case where it is unreasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal proceedings on the ground that the scope of Defendant’s liability for compensation is not clear, etc.
4...