사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order) is excessively unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. In light of the fact that the circumstance favorable to the sentencing in the first instance court by the Defendant, such as the confession of the Defendant and the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant, the lower court already determined the sentence in the lower court and determined the scope of the discretion.
It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.