산업안전보건법위반
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (limited to Defendant B’s fine of four million won and Defendant D’s fine of two million won) is too uneased and 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 in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment in the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence in the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the views of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendants in the grounds for appeal appear to have been sufficiently considered while rendering the sentence in the lower court, and there is no new additional circumstance to change the sentencing in the lower court in the first instance court, and considering the age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, etc. of the Defendants, the lower court exceeded the reasonable discretion.
It cannot be said that it is unfair because it is too unfluened so far.
3. The appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the judgment below to “the pertinent Article of the Act on 1.