Defendant

A Punishment sentenced by the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment of one year and six months, and second instance court: imprisonment of 1 year and 2019Sang4516, and one year in imprisonment of 6 months and 2020 altitude609) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

BA Punishment sentenced by the second instance court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

A is considered ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment on appeal.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance rendered each judgment against the defendant, and the defendant filed each appeal against them, and this court decided to jointly examine the above two appeals cases.

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, each of the crimes of heading 2019 high-ranking4516 in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the case of heading 2019 high-ranking4516 in the judgment of the court of first and second instance

It is reasonable to respect the judgment of the court of first instance where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court of first instance on the case No. 2020, 609, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

In full view of all the factors revealed in the records and arguments of this case, it does not seem that the second court below exceeded the reasonable scope because the punishment prescribed in the case No. 2020 high-ranking609 was too large.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the appeal of the BA, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015