폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below against the defendants in summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.
2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendants by comprehensively taking account of the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances into account.
The circumstances alleged by the Defendants as the grounds for appeal (such as the conflict of the Defendants, the agreement with a considerable number of victims, and the degree of participation in the crime in the case of Defendant B, etc.) seems to have already been taken into account in the sentencing process of the lower court.
In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the original court's punishment in the trial.
(1) In light of the method and frequency of the crime indicated in the record, the degree of damage, etc., the nature of the crime of the instant joint conflict is not good, and even if there are circumstances where some victims have reached an additional agreement at the time of the trial, it shall not be considered as circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court. In full view of the Defendants’ character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
Defendant
A’s defense counsel asserts to the effect that all the above seized articles and the materials extracted therefrom are inadmissible, since it is unlawful to seize from Co-Defendant B the two parts of Nowon-gu, computer body, three parts of cell phone, and two parts of cell phone, which are owned by Defendant A, in the form of voluntary submission.
However, the arrest of the defendant B, which was shown in the record, and accompanied by it.