beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A, D, P: 2 million won, Defendant C, J, N: 3 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the ex officio reversal records against Defendant A, the Defendant, at the Daegu District Court on August 20, 2015, sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment with labor for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol) at the Daegu District Court on August 20, 2015, and on August 28, 2015, was finally affirmed.
The Defendant’s crime of this case is one of the crimes subject to the above final judgment and the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be determined after considering equity and the mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendants’ age, health status, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, size of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence that is considerably lower than the statutory penalty is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.
There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of the same is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as claimed by the Defendants, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A among the judgment below is reversed ex officio. Thus, without examining Defendant A’s unfair argument of sentencing, it is subject to Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.