beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.
B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it is not deemed that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, in light of all circumstances such as the circumstances and contents of the crime in this case, the defendant's behavior and attitude before and after the crime in this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.
B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, and that it is necessary to consider equity with the case where the defendant was tried together with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive.
However, the crime of this case is committed by deceiving the victim C in spite of the intention or ability of the defendant to pay the drinking value, and by deceiving the victim C with the alcohol value of 180,000 won, in light of the content of the crime, the responsibility of the crime is heavy, the defendant does not make any effort to recover the damage of the victim, the defendant has a history of having been punished several times as the same crime, the defendant has a history of having been punished several times in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.