logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.06.02 2015노249
업무방해
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, observation of protection, 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the public prosecutor (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, 120 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the 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 lower court’s judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment because the defendant was found to have been accused of his/her criminal act in the first instance court, but the victim still

In full view of all the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too heavy, or the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

3. As such, the appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow