Judgment

When there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the part of the case, and the first instance’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant is an injury to the victim, such as face, face, face, boom, etc., after having sexual intercourse with the victim using the victim’s mental or physical loss or impossible condition, and taking advantage of the victim’s face after having sexual intercourse, etc., the victim’s face is threatened, and the victim H was threatened, and the victim’s cell phone and resident registration certificate were stolen, and the victim’s pecuniary benefit was acquired by taking advantage of the victim’s mobile phone and the victim’s mobile phone, the victim’s money was stolen from the victim’s S, and each crime was committed with considerable damage in light of the content and circumstances of each crime, and degree of damage.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case in the trial of the party, the fact that the defendant returned the cell phone to the victim L, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendant.

As above, comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions stipulated by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, including the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, as well as the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, after the sentence of the lower judgment.