특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.
2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment, which is the lower limit of the applicable sentence that has been mitigated due to mental and physical disability, in consideration of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed a crime in a state of mental and physical disability as a person with intellectual disability 3; (b) committed a crime in a state of mental and physical disability; (c) partly committed a crime; (d) the amount of damage caused by an attempted crime was not significant; and (e) the amount of damage would have been returned to the victim; and (d) the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced 15 times or sentenced to punishment for the same crime; and (e) the Defendant committed a repeated crime without being aware of the period of