beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the grounds of appeal.
2. It is recognized that the Defendants’ mistake is divided, that there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime against Defendant B, and Defendant B is in the relation of special injury for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the relation of concurrent crimes between group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act and group after Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to consider equity in the case of concurrent crimes.
However, the crime of this case is not good; Defendant A committed the crime of this case repeatedly despite the previous convictions of the same kind; Defendant B committed the crime of this case again during the repeated crime period; Defendant A committed the crime of this case; Defendant A committed the crime of this case again during the repeated crime period; Defendant A, the frequency of medication of chophones; Defendant B instigated Defendant B to administer chophones; Defendant B; in consideration of the balance of sentencing with the crimes of this case; the sentencing balance with other Defendants’ age, sex and environment; motive, means and consequence of the crime; and various conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The phrase " is obvious that it is a clerical error (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014; 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 201), and the phrase "the Defendants" of the 4th 15th Myeon 15 are the clerical error of "Defendant B". The crime of the 4th 17th Myeon 1-B of the judgment, and the crime of the 1-B of the annexed crime No. 1-B of the judgment, and the crime of the 3-B of the annexed crime No. 1-B of the judgment, and the crime of the 1-C of the judgment.
Crimes and No. 1-D.
Inasmuch as it is apparent that there was an omission of “inter-crimes”, Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure deletes the above 2, 4-5 conduct.