뇌물공여등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Seized evidence 1, 1.
1. Summary of reasons for appeal: The punishment (defendant A: imprisonment of three years and six months, confiscation, additional collection of 2,449,804,350, Defendant D: imprisonment of eight months and two years of suspended execution) that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although, in applying the ex officio decision-making legislation with respect to Defendant A, the lower court first selected the punishment for the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Defense and the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Labor, and then selected the punishment for the crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Defense and the Act on the Protection of Labor, which led to the failure to maintain the lower judgment.
B. Determination 1 on Defendant D’s unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the determination of discretion is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.
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.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) In the first instance trial, the Defendant was aware of all of the instant crimes, and it is in profoundly against the Defendant, and if the sentence of the lower court becomes final and conclusive, it is anticipated that there would be any disadvantage that the lower court would be unable to conduct legal affairs for the next four years, but there is a change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court.
It is difficult to see.