특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The Defendants’ resistance is too heavy in the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, and one year and six months of imprisonment).
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.
Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendants with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the lower court’s judgment are sufficiently taken into account when it was determined by the lower court, and the first instance sentencing determination exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Although Defendant A does not appear to have an attitude to recognize and reflect a crime in the first instance court, it is difficult to view that the change of the sentence of the lower court is a change in circumstances that could change. In the case of Defendant E, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the first instance court.
Therefore, the defendants' argument of sentencing is without merit.
3. Conclusion.