약사법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said sentence.
The circumstances cited by the defendant on the grounds of appeal are elements that have already been determined by the court below as well as sufficiently taken into account, and there is no circumstance that can be specially considered in the trial of the party, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing.
Specifically, the defendant did not have been punished or punished in excess of the fine for the same kind of crime prior to this case.
However, the crime of this case was committed in a systematic manner among many accomplices, and the criminal liability of the defendant is not weak in that the defendant led all of the crimes.
Nevertheless, the defendant had shown that he had been responsible to other accomplices, and actively instructed accomplices to destroy evidence, and denied the crime.