특수상해등
The judgment below
Among them, the part concerning the first offense in the ruling of the 2018 Highest 414 case shall be reversed.
Defendant 2018 Highest 414.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of April, 2018 largeest 414 largeest 2010 largeest 414 largeest 2 and 3, and a crime of 2018 largeest 1024 largeest 2010 largeest 200 largeest 200 largeest 200 largeest 200 large scale 10
2. Determination
A. The crime of this part concerning the crime No. 1 in the holding of the case 2018 Godan414 is recognized as an assault by the defendant, such as seeing a victim's her face at the time of her face, and destroying property owned by the victim. In light of the method and form of the crime, the responsibility for the crime is heavy, and the fact that the defendant has a history of punishment for the same crime is recognized.
However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime; (b) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim; and (c) equity with the case of concurrent judgment with the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury to Dangerous Driving), the Defendant’s age, living environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower
B. It is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s part on the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the 2018 Highest 414 Case, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the following: (a) the heavy liability for each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant has been punished several times for the same type of crime; and (c) the Defendant has not been aware of the suspension period of execution due to the same crime; and (d) repeated driving without a license for drinking and without a license.
Although it is recognized that the defendant has agreed with the victim of the intrusion at the time of the trial, the victim seems to have suffered a great mental suffering at the time.