beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the requester for the order to observe the protection is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On August 25, 2012, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution and convicted all the remainder of the facts charged.
On the other hand, the defendant and the claimant for the observation order of protection (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed against the above guilty part.
Thus, the dismissal part of the above public prosecution is separately decided by the defendant and the prosecutor without filing an appeal. Thus, the judgment of this court is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime No. 1-A, as indicated in the holding of the lower court; 1-B, as indicated in the holding of the lower court; 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime and a crime No. 2) is too unreasonable.
B. It is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to disclose and notify personal information for a period of three years, even though there are special circumstances that may not disclose or inform the defendant of the improper defendant of the disclosure or notification order.
3. Determination
A. The part 1 of the instant case regarding the unfair argument of sentencing did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined the punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to and unfavorable to the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning.
In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial (the circumstance that the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged by an investigative agency seems to have already been taken into account in the lower court) and other factors of sentencing indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, social relationship, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.