beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unfasible to the punishment (3 million won in penalty) declared by the court below, and that the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime on a five-day basis after release, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with heavy punishment.
However, since the crime of this case interferes with the taxi business by means that the defendant takes a bath and does not get off the taxi, damage is relatively minor, the defendant misleads the victim, and smoothly agrees with the victim, and the crime of this case should be considered as a normal situation in favor of the fact that the equity should be considered with the case where the defendant has been tried at the same time as the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as the Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts (Mediation of Commercial Sex Acts,
In addition, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of appeal appear to have been already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.
When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. as shown in such circumstances, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because it exceeded, is too heavy, or is too heavy, or is fluent.
3. According to the conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). The first criminal facts of the judgment below are as follows: "the defendant is at the Busan District Court on August 29, 2016."