체포치상등
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that this judgment.
1. The summary of the reasons for appeal: The sentencing of the court below against the defendants (the defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment and the defendant B: 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering the following: the defendants were led to confessions and reflects from the investigation stage; the defendant's father borne 807,100 won of the victim's medical expenses; the defendant Eul paid 4 million won to the victim in the trial; the injured party did not want punishment against the defendant B; and the social relation between the defendants is obvious.
2. Determination
A. Based on the statutory penalty, Defendant A’s sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.
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.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the said Defendant with due regard to the sentencing indicated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the said Defendant, such as that the father of the said Defendant was liable for medical expenses incurred by the victim, are already determined by the lower court and sufficiently considered.