상해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. When considering the fact that the victim did not want the punishment against the defendant from the beginning, it is difficult to view that the agreement with the victim submitted by the defendant for the first time in the trial is a new circumstance to consider sentencing.
The degree of injury of the victim is light, the victim's mistake is not easy, the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant, and the defendant is repenting in depth, and there are favorable circumstances for the defendant.
However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was the period of probation, the commission of the crime committed by stealing the name of punishment E even for the crime subject to the said probation, the statutory punishment for the crime of forging the signature of the company and the crime of intentional signature of the above investigation is inevitable for the sentence of imprisonment only for the crime of imprisonment, and other conditions of all the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and result of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is unfair.
3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.
Judgment on the application for a petition for adjudication on constitutionality
1. The petition purport concerns the part concerning “a person who shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years” in Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act and the part concerning “the preceding paragraph” in Article 239(2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the instant legal provision”) concerning “the preceding paragraph.”
2. The gist of the instant legal provision is in violation of the principle of equality by losing the balance in the penal system, and is in violation of the Constitution by infringing on the judge’s right to decide on the sentencing.
3. When comparing the nature of judgment and the relationship between the protection of legal interests with other similar crimes, the statutory penalty under the legal provision of this case cannot be deemed to be harsh enough to lose balance compared with similar crimes, and it cannot be deemed that the statutory penalty of this case is excessively harsh.