beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The lower court: (a) all favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendant cited by the Defendant in the grounds for appeal are the circumstances already considered by the lower court while determining the sentence; and (b) there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in the first instance court’s trial, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court
In addition, the majority of the lessees suffered damages, and the majority of them were students who had their residence around the region after entering the university in the vicinity of the building of this case. The recovery of their key money or deposit money for lease has become unsatisfying, the victim's constant desire for strict punishment, and the defendant's age, family environment, economic situation, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, even if examining all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
It is difficult to evaluate.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That since it is evident that "AB (303)" of No. 1 AB No. 8 per year of sight of crime among the judgment below is erroneous in office "AB (313)", it is decided to rectify it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, see Article 395 of the evidence record).