logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.02 2016노1812
공직선거법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentencing of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate range.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination of the instant case based on the above legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, takes into account the following: (a) the elements for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, namely, the Defendant’s use of violence against the candidate regarding an election, which constitutes the foundation of democracy, are sufficiently considered; (b) the recognition of the Defendant’s crime and the degree of injury inflicted on the victim; (c) the Defendant was somewhat contingent; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant did not want punishment against the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim; and (e) the Defendant did not have any criminal record beyond the fine.

arrow