본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.08.25 2017노1003

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in 6 months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from reversal of the first instance judgment and rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In this case, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a new document to reverse the sentencing of the lower court solely by reference materials (written diagnosis, written confirmation of release from entering the court, and written confirmation of intention) submitted by the Defendant at the appellate court.

shall not be deemed to exist.

As the court below was not submitted, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and taking full account of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion 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 grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.