협박교사
All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. According to the records of the instant case’s judgment on the Defendants’ appeal, Defendant A did not submit the lawful grounds for appeal despite being served on July 2, 2019, and Defendant B on April 21, 2019 each of the notification of the receipt of the trial records within the period for submission of the lawful grounds for appeal, the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal, and further, the records cannot be found even if examining the grounds for ex officio investigation.
Therefore, under Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss the appeal by the Defendants should be made. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants, the dismissal of appeal shall not be separately decided, and a judgment shall be rendered concurrently
(Supreme Court Decision 69Do143 delivered on May 27, 1969, etc.). Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence (a fine of KRW 5 million is imposed on the Defendants (a fine of KRW 5 million, and a fine of KRW 3 million) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible.
B. 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 is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the health department and the trial on the grounds of the foregoing legal doctrine, and the reason for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appears to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.
In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors as shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the developments and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too unhued and so it cannot be said that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.