아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(성매수등)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three years of community service, 240 hours, and 40 hours of lectures to prevent sexual traffic) is too uneasy and 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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health team and the prosecutor’s assertion as an element of sentencing had already been revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered, and there is no particular change of circumstances in matters that are the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was made.
In addition, when the court below comprehensively takes into account all the elements of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances, age, sex and environment of the defendant, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the court below’s sentencing is too low within the reasonable scope of its discretion, and it cannot be deemed unfair.
Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.
3. Conclusion.