beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
“Evidence Nos. 14 through 17, 20, 22” in the text of the order is “Evidence Nos. 14 through 17.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. It is desirable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance judgment.
Although the victim’s damaged goods have been returned to the victim and the damage has been recovered, considering unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime, in particular, two months have not passed since the execution of punishment was completed for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant again led to the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence that sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor, which is the shortest punishment, is too unreasonable to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that it is without merit. However, inasmuch as it is apparent that “No. 14 through 17, 20, 22” in the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the “No. 14 through 17, and 22” in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s appeal is ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.