beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.02 2019노3823

공무집행방해

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months, one year of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of community service order) presented by the court below that the defendant is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing in the trial of the lower court were already revealed during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and no changes in circumstances favorable to the sentencing guidelines are found after the sentence of the lower court.

In light of the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings of this case and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, it cannot be deemed unfair since the Defendant’s sentence, which the lower court imposed, is too heavy or is so unfluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.