특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복상해등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The abstract of reasons for appeal is as follows: The degree of injury to a victim is too important;
In light of the fact that the defendant did not seem to have been able to commit the crime of injury at the end of the trial with the victim, and that retaliation was committed as a contingency, the sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is excessively 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 trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the preceding sentence on account of the fact that the sentencing as indicated in its reasoning was in mind, and the circumstances concerning the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial are already determined in the lower court and sufficiently considered.
Unlike the judgment of the court below, the defendant recognized the crime at the court below, but the circumstances that the defendant agreed with the victim or endeavored to recover the damage have not been peeped, so it is a new circumstance to change the degree of responsibility for the defendant's act.