beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years and six months, respectively.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendants of the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Considering the fact that Defendant A has sexual intercourse with the victim I by taking advantage of the victim I’s state of impossibility to resist, aiding and abetting Defendant B’s victim I to commit quasi-rape, and theft of the victim I’s property, etc., the crime of this case requires strict punishment against Defendant A.
However, when Defendant A made a confession of all of the crimes of this case and divided his mistake, Defendant A did not have any specific criminal records other than juvenile protective disposition once, Defendant A did not want to be punished by Defendant A by agreement with the victim I, and considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable, and thus, Defendant A’s above assertion is reasonable.
B. Considering the fact that Defendant B had sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim I’s state of impossibility to resist, and the nature of the crime is not good, strict punishment against Defendant B is necessary.
However, Defendant B’s mistake is divided, Defendant B is the primary offender, Defendant B does not want the punishment of Defendant B by mutual consent with the victim I when Defendant B was in the first instance trial, and considering the age, character and conduct, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too unreasonable, and thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is reasonable.
3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is reasonable, and therefore, it is in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.