자동차관리법위반등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (one year and six months of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; one year of suspended execution; two years of suspended execution; and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, intended each of the above punishments against the Defendants, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the lower court’s trial are the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the lower court’s sentencing trial process. Based on such circumstance, the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
It is difficult to see the sentencing conditions, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.
Therefore, the defendants' argument of sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.