강간치상등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
The defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below (long-term three years and short-term two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that the punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.
Judgment
It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole basis of the fact that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, there is no change in the original judgment and the sentencing conditions since new sentencing data have not been submitted at the trial, and the defendant is a juvenile, and even if the victim suffered from mental harm that was difficult to recover due to the crime in this case, it is too unreasonable or unreasonable to escape the scope of sentencing.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal filed by the defendant and