beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.21 2019노2155

폭행등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, the lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant had a number of criminal records related to violence; (b) the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims; (c) the Defendant was absent from the trial since December 2018 and committed an additional larceny in the process; (d) the extent and amount of damage is relatively minor; and (e) the Defendant has no record of being punished by imprisonment or having no record of being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor. In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, motive and background of the crime; and (e) the Defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account that the Defendant denied a part of the crime at the lower court’s trial and led the Defendant to a confession and reflect it in the trial.