특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(운전자폭행등)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation) is too unreasonable;
2. 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 the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as (i) the recognition of and against the Defendant’s criminal act; (ii) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment; (iii) the Defendant suffers from suffering from the climatic cerebral cerebriform encephalopathy due to traffic accident aftermathy; and (iv) the fact that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; (iv) the Defendant assaulted the victim operating a taxi without any particular reason to cause injury; and (v) the police continued to criticize the Defendant even after arrival.
In light of the sentencing conditions revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the judgment of the court below exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion, or there are no new circumstances or changes in special circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below.
In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, and the scope of recommending sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee on the instant crime, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, which is determined by discretionary mitigation, by actively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, within the reasonable scope of discretion. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentencing of the lower court
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.
3. Conclusion.