특수폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, without any particular reasons, committed the instant crime by provoking the trial expenses to the victim; (b) was likely to wear golf loans, which are dangerous objects, and was in a high risk of breaking the form of the instant crime; (c) it is difficult to find out that the Defendant was devoking, such as taking a bath during the investigation; (d) there is a risk of causing harm to the victim; and (e) re-offending the same power even though there are many kinds of electric power units, the sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) of the lower court
2. Since the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle as to the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area for sentencing determination, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor in the lower court appear to have already been considered when determining the punishment at the lower court, and there is no additional document to change the lower court’s punishment, and there is no other submission of additional document to change the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., taking into account all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate.
3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.