폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is unreasonable because each of the following punishments imposed by the court below against the Defendants is too uneasible.
- Defendant A, B, E, F, and G: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of suspended execution, Defendant C, and D: Imprisonment for eight months and two years of suspended execution.
2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance in relation to the determination of sentencing, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not go beyond the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. It is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from that of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Since new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court, there is no particular difference from the sentencing conditions of the lower court on the grounds that the lower court did not change in detail, and even after examining all the grounds for sentencing for the Defendants and various conditions of sentencing in this case, the prosecutor’s assertion of the sentencing is not acceptable in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: (i) ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the “Motor Vehicle Management Act” in the relevant provision of the Act concerning criminal facts in the application of the statutes of the judgment below to “former Motor Vehicle Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 201