특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복폭행등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution regarding the following: (a) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defluence assault, etc.); (b) theft of intrusion on a structure at night; (c) destruction of special property; (d) intrusion of buildings; (c) destruction of property; (d) obstruction of business; and (e) intimidation; and (d) only the Defendant filed an appeal against the remainder other than the dismissed part of the
Therefore, the dismissal of the public prosecution for which an appeal has not been filed is separated and confirmed as it is, it is excluded from the scope of adjudication.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. The fact that the injured party expressed his/her intention that he/she would not want the punishment of the defendant at the original trial, and that the defendant denied some crimes at the original trial and all confessions at this court is favorable.
However, the defendant has already been punished several times including the same crime, and in particular, the fact that the defendant committed the second crime without being involved in each repeated crime even though he had been employed for the period of repeated crime at the time of the instant case, and that the victim has committed intimidation and assault for the purpose of retaliation in relation to the investigation due to the crime more than several times is disadvantageous to the nature of the crime.
In addition to these circumstances, there is a special change in circumstances that may vary in punishment from the original trial to the trial of the party.
In addition, considering all the factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.
4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.