이자제한법위반등
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (for Defendant A, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, 4 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspended execution) against the Defendants is deemed unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendants into account, and there is no circumstance to be newly considered in the trial. Therefore, even considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor based on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.
Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.