특수폭행
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) of the Defendant (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentencing of the prosecutor (e.g., indubly unfair) is unreasonable as it is too unhued.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the
In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination of the sentence against the Defendant on July 23, 2015 is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the punishment of the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the punishment of the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the punishment of the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.