beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence (one and half years, confiscation, and two years and six months, imprisonment) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Although there are unfavorable circumstances with regard to Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, such as the fact that the nature of the instant Bosing crime is not good, Defendant A did not have any criminal power, Defendant A agreed to pay KRW 10 million which he finally acquired at the original trial to the victim and agreed to do so, the victim wanting to have the prior wife against Defendant A in the trial, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, including the Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A seems to be too unreasonable.
B. It is reasonable to respect Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, including Defendant B’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, in light of the following: (a) there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence was rendered; (b) Defendant B had the criminal record of having been sentenced to one year by taking part in the crime committed during the period of repeated crime after being released; and (c) Defendant B did not make any effort to recover damage to the victim; and (d) it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by Defendant B is too unreasonable.
3. Accordingly, Defendant A’s appeal is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal is again made as follows.