성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., indubly unfair) of the lower court’s punishment (e.g., imprisonment for two months, one year of suspended execution, and six months of imprisonment for each of the crimes in the same crime list Nos. 9 through 12 in the judgment of the lower court) is too unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court
In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, as the new sentencing data was submitted in the trial at the trial at the same time, and there is no other change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, it is difficult
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.