beta
Text
Part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.
Defendant
A fine of KRW 3,00,000 shall be imposed on B.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: 2. Determination of this Court
A. Although Defendant A reached an agreement with the victim F, the defendant was completely divided into his mistake, the defendant was punished several times for a similar type of crime, but the defendant was punished by a fine, and the victim F's business place was damaged and threatened by the victim F's disease, and the victim F's use of violence to the police officers dispatched upon receipt of the report, etc., and the nature of the crime was poor. In full view of all other circumstances indicated in the arguments in the instant case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence leading the defendant to the instant crime, the circumstance before and after the instant crime, and the risk of recidivism, it cannot be deemed that the suspension of execution of imprisonment imposed by the court of first instance is too unfair. Thus, the defendant's allegation disputing this point cannot be accepted.
B. Although Defendant B also inflicted serious injury on the victim J, Defendant B did not reach an agreement with the above victim even yet, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant deposited one million won for the above victim; (b) the result of injury was significant compared to the extent of the Defendant’s use of violence; (c) the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the act of obstruction of business is relatively minor; and (d) there was no other type of criminal records similar to the Defendant except for the fine records committed before 20 years ago; and (b) other circumstances indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the above Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (c) the suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed by the first instance court on Defendant B is too unreasonable.
3. According to the conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be accepted, but only Defendant B’s appeal.