beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and 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 the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized and reflects his/her mistake; (b) the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed in a state of mental disorder caused by mental illness in a state of mental disorder; (c) the fact that the victims agreed with most victims, such as an additional agreement with a considerable number of victims; or (d) the said victims do not want to be punished against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was subject to assault from the victim A in the course of habitual assault.
Meanwhile, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment due to various violent crimes, including a repeated crime committed in the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the Defendant, the crime of this case has been repeatedly committed for about two months since the date of release, and the background and method of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is very bad in light of the circumstances, the victims are likely to feel a considerable fear due to the Defendant’s each crime, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the agreement of the victims and the intent of the victim to be subject to punishment was attributable to the Defendant’s genuine tolerance.
Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.
The motive and means of committing the crime;