공공단체등위탁선거에관한법률위반
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. As to the sentence (such as Defendant A’s imprisonment for one year, Defendant B’s imprisonment for six months, and 2 years of suspended execution) declared by the lower court, Defendant A asserts that it is too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that the respective sentence against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) the health care unit; (b) the recognition of some crimes that Defendant A denied from the trial to the trial of the lower court; (c) the Defendant’s health condition is not good; and (d) the Defendant supporting the aged’s mother; and (c) there is no change in the special sentencing conditions that may change the sentencing of the lower court in the other trial.
In addition, in full view of the reasons for sentencing that the court below specifically explained in detail and the reasons for sentencing revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the court below does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by putting the defendants too heavy or unhued.
Therefore, the defendant A and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. Conclusion, Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.