beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months.
. Prosecutors;
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants (one year and six months of imprisonment for the Defendants A and three years of probation, one year of imprisonment for the community service order, one year of probation against the Defendants B, two years of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of the community service order) are too unfasible and unfair.
2. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years at the Busan High Court on July 22, 2009 due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc. (special robbery, Rape, etc.) and the execution of the sentence was terminated on November 9, 201, and Defendant A committed the instant joint injury on October 26, 2013, for which three years have not passed since the completion of the above execution, it can be recognized that Defendant A committed the instant joint injury on October 26, 201. Thus, Defendant A constitutes a person who is a repeated offender under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and is disqualified for suspended execution under the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, as to the crime of violation
However, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the suspension of execution without emphasizing the defendant A as a repeated offender, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of repeated crime and the disqualifications for suspended execution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. The judgment on the grounds of appeal against Defendant B (hereinafter in this paragraph, referred to as “Defendant”) interfere with the performance of official duties by using a passenger car, which is a dangerous object. In light of the contents of the Defendant’s act as indicated in this part of the crime, the fact that the case is significant and serious in light of the contents of the Defendant’s act as indicated in this part of the crime, the CCTV photographs taken in the process of the crime, etc., and the fact that the Defendant opened the first door of the vehicle for the purpose of allowing Defendant A to escape from the beginning and is strongly suspected to go against Defendant A, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
However, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case.