축산물위생관리법위반
All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ sentence (10 months of imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.
The court below set the punishment against the Defendants by taking account of the circumstances that the Defendants committed the crime of this case where the Defendants committed the crime of this case by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendants seriously damaged the purpose of the Livestock Industry’ sound development and the enactment of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act aimed at improving the quality of livestock products by promoting the sanitary management and improvement of the quality of livestock products; (b) the Defendants’ benefits are taking advantage of the crime of this case; and (c) the final consumers who consume the livestock products that have been slaughtered without permission, while taking advantage of the profits of the Defendants, are faced with risks that may harm their health; and (d) Defendant A had the same history of fine three times in the case of Defendant A, and without being aware of the period of
C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive of crime, and circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, even if considering the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too heavy or less, and the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B is not too heavy.
Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation of unfair sentencing against Defendant A by the Defendants and the Prosecutor.
3. Conclusion, the Defendants’ conclusion is as follows.