특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
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, the principle is to respect the determination of sentencing in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and two months, and there is no change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with matters that are the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.
The crime of this case was committed by the defendant who is the representative of the rental car maintenance company, and was the first vice president confined in the detention house.
In order to arrange the provision of convenience throughout life, such as doctor meetings, medical treatment, external meetings, etc., with respect to J, the case is a case where G Group’s affiliated private individuals G takes a role in maintaining sirens from G (the part where the lower court stated that the sentencing was “in return for arranging the provision of convenience” in the past is an act of specific solicitation, in light of the context before and after, and after, “the act of specific solicitation.”