사기등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. As to the punishment sentenced by the first instance court (unfair sentencing) on the summary of the grounds for appeal (Sentencing 8 months), the Defendant asserts that the above punishment is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor is too unfeasible and unfair.
2. We also examine the above unfair sentencing argument by the Defendant and the prosecutor.
In the instant case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be specifically considered in the appellate trial, taking into account the various circumstances indicated in the column of “reason for sentencing” in the judgment of the first instance, and other various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the first instance court is too heavy or unreasonable as it goes beyond the scope of the sentencing discretion.
Therefore, the above unfair sentencing argument by the defendant and the prosecutor cannot be accepted in all.
3. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed (Provided, That in the application of the provisions of the first instance judgment, the phrase “Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the embezzlement of the renunciation of possession) against the criminal facts of 1.0” is apparent that the phrase “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act (the embezzlement of the escape of possession) against the criminal facts of 1.0 is a clerical error in the pertinent Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act (the embezzlement of the escape of possession) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is to be corrected in accordance with Article 25(1)