정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment for one year and ten months, the suspension of execution for three years, the probation, the community service order of 200 hours, the order of violence therapy for 40 hours) of the lower court is too unreasonable;
2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of a political party have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.
The fact that the defendant was aware of each of the crimes in this case and appears to be contradictory to each of the crimes in this case, and that the degree of injury suffered by the victim D is not much serious, etc. are favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, the crime of violation of the Information and Communications Network Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection was sent by the defendant to the victim B who is his father.