폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습특수상해)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of reasons for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant recognized and reflected his criminal act.
Defendant
(1982) The victims seem to have committed the crime in accordance with the direction of the early 1980 and the early 1981, and the victims do not want to be punished by the defendant.
On April 16, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Bodily Injury) at the Suwon Friwon method for the same year.
6. 26. A previous conviction for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and since the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined at the same time in consideration of equity and criminal cases.
On the other hand, when the victims, who caused the 1983 1983, were her her butt her butt her part of the organization, were 30 her or her her butt her part of the organization, and the victims were injured by the victims by her at least 30 her her butt her bet her part of the organization.
The defendant's crime was committed by a very dangerous method, and the degree of violence is serious.
Although victims have not been punished by the defendant, it is difficult to evaluate the victims' non-existence of punishment to the same extent as the punishment of victims of general violent crimes, as the victims are the follow-up victims of organized violent crimes such as the defendant.
The defendant has a significant number of records of punishment for violent crimes, and the crime of this case is the same kind of crime committed during the period of repeated crime after being sentenced to imprisonment not less than twice in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.
In the above circumstances, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data that could change the sentencing have not been submitted in the trial at the above trial, and other records of this case, such as the defendant's age, criminal record, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc.