beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentencing (a year of imprisonment and confiscation) in the part of the case against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable.
B. It is unreasonable for the court below to sentence the medical care and custody to the Defendant and the requester for the medical care and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) without the necessity of medical treatment or the risk of re-offending.
2. Determination
A. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope. In our criminal litigation law, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area for the first deliberation
In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and aesthetic nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning, including the Defendant’s confession and the Defendant’s failure to repeat the crime, and the Defendant’s most losses were recovered in the first instance trial.