감금치상등
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. In light of the following: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the Defendants do not seem to be in conflict with the truth; (b) the victims want to escape the Defendants’ severe punishment; and (c) the Defendants had the history of punishing the Defendants for the several violent crimes, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants to a suspended sentence is too uneasible and unfair.
2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and 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, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime committed by the Defendants committed the instant crime by assaulting the victim at a lower level, forcing him/her to capture, detain him/her by force, thereby causing bodily injury to the victim, and forcing him/her to prepare a fair deed for the obligation of the victim under confinement, which is very poor.
Therefore, even though the victim suffered significant physical and mental damage, the defendants did not make any effort to recover the damage, and the victim still wishes to punish the defendants.
In addition, one of the defendants has been punished as a crime of violence several times.
These circumstances are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
On the other hand, the defendants showed an attitude to reflect their mistakes, and the fact that the victim failed to pay for a considerable amount of debt has caused the crime of this case, and that the defendants did not have any past record of punishment, etc. are favorable to the defendants.
In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, and family relationship, the lower court’s determination of sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, and thus, the Prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing is rejected.
3. Conclusion.