beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.
As to the instant case, the health team and the prosecutor did not submit new sentencing data at the trial court, and comprehensively considering the sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, degree of damage to the victims, relationship with the victims, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing seems to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor'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.
(However, in the application of the law of the court below, it is clear that the "competence" in Part 5 of the fourth part of the judgment below is a clerical error in the "competence within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the crimes", and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 2