범인도피교사
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) the sentencing of the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in June, and two million won of each fine in case of Defendant C, Defendant D, and E) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The crime of this case is a case where Defendant C instructed Defendant D and E to undergo a police investigation on behalf of Defendant D and E, and Defendant D and E are the following suspects present at the police on behalf of the above A and B, resulting in confusion in the investigation by being investigated and interfering with the exercise of appropriate criminal justice power.
The Defendants appears to be seriously against each of the instant crimes, and Defendant D, and E did not have any extenuating circumstance to consider the Defendants in favor of themselves, such as: (a) the Defendants’ confession of each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendants committed the instant crimes in accordance with Defendant C’s active teachers; (c) the Defendants committed the instant crimes once investigated by the police; and (d) the Defendant C led to a false confession immediately after being investigated by the police once; and (c) prior to the instant case, Defendant C did not have any specific penal power other than the amount of punishment once sentenced to a fine, and Defendant D did not have
However, as seen above, each of the crimes committed by the Defendants is not against the crime that interferes with the appropriate exercise of criminal justice rights.
Considering such circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the Defendants, as well as the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is determined to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion. The conditions of sentencing alleged by the Defendants in the first instance trial have already been sufficiently considered in the lower court, and there is no other special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court.
Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted, as it is reasonable to respect the judgment of the court below.
The conclusion is.