beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution as to the insult of the victim B, and convicted the Defendant of the remainder of the charges, and dismissed the public prosecution without the prosecutor’s appeal as to only the Defendant appealed the part of the conviction, which became final and conclusive by the lapse of the appeal period, and thus, in the first instance trial, the judgment is to be made only for the convicted portion of the lower judgment.
2. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.
3. It is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake is divided, and the amount of damage to fraud and property is not so large, and the degree of assault is not much excessive, and that there are agreements with the victim B and the defrauded J.
However, considering the following facts: (a) the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment for the same crime; (b) there was no record of damage to property; (c) there was no agreement with the victims other than the victim B and J; and (d) there was no change of circumstances that could otherwise determine the lower court and the punishment; and (b) there was no other change of circumstances that the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes; and (c) all of the sentencing conditions stated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
4. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 70(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that the term “Article 70(1) of the Criminal Act” in the written judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the “Article 70 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)” and the summary of the evidence is clearly indicated in the “2014 High Court Decision 2978”.