폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
Defendant
A’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing by both parties to Defendant A, and the sentencing of the original judgment 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). This court did not submit new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances surrounding the Defendant, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s appearance in prison with juveniles, and assault and detain a minor female victim; and (b) the Defendant’s appearance is not good in light of the content of the instant crime; (c) the victim did not receive a letter from the victims; and (d) the Defendant’s confessions the Defendant, and there was no record of punishment heavier than imprisonment without prison labor, and there was no record of punishment, the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
shall not be deemed to exist.
We do not accept the argument of the defendant and the prosecutor that the court below's sentencing is unfair.
2. There is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, since this court did not submit a new sentencing data, as to the prosecutor’s improper argument about sentencing on Defendant B.
In addition, considering the circumstances that considering the Defendant’s given account of the fact that the Defendant is a juvenile with no history of criminal punishment and has no record of criminal punishment, etc., even if considering the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, such as the fact that the nature of the offense is not less than that of the offense in light of the substance of the offense, the lower court’s punishment was too unfasible and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
shall not be deemed to exist.
We do not accept the prosecutor's argument that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.
3. Conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are dismissed as it is without merit.