beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of one year and two months and fine of 40,000.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and six months, and fine of 40,000,000 won, Defendant B: Imprisonment of one year and fine of 20,000,000 won, Defendant Incorporated Company C: fine of 20,000 won and fine of 20,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The fact that the forest of Defendant A and B once damaged is difficult to restore the forest or requires a long time, and that the area of the mountainous district converted without obtaining permission by Defendant A and B is considerably wide, etc. are unfavorable to the Defendants.
However, the Defendants appeared to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing the instant crime. On January 24, 2016, the Defendants confirmed the completion of the restoration of the site prior to the instant crime from Jeju viewing, and appears to have endeavored to restore the mountainous district to the same state as that prior to the damage. The Defendants did not have any history of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.
In light of these circumstances, considering the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method, and all the sentencing factors as shown in the instant records and the trial process, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the above Defendants’ assertion has merit.
B. In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and trial process of the instant crime, including the motive and background of the instant crime, means and method, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded, or to have exceeded, the reasonable discretion imposed on the Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company C, or to be undue, because, once the damage was inflicted on the Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company C, the restoration of the forest was difficult, or the area of the unlawfully converted mountainous district was considerably wide.
Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, Defendant .