beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1 million; a fine of KRW 10 million; a fine of KRW 10 months; a suspended sentence of KRW 3 million; and a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on Defendant B is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The crime of this case regarding Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing was committed by the victim J with regard to the land owned by Defendant A, and the victim Bro Industrial Development Co., Ltd and the Asia Trust Co., Ltd. did not reach an agreement on the purchase price in relation to the sale and purchase of part of the said land, and the crime committed in order to interfere with the above victims’ work.
However, Defendant A is an initial crime with no record of criminal punishment, and it is against the depth of the crime of this case when it comes to the first instance, and aiding and abetting the crime of interference with Defendant B’s business. Moreover, the victim J, a lessee, seems to have accepted the court’s decision of recommending reconciliation in the relevant civil case and resolved the dispute smoothly.
In addition, in full view of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, especially the Defendant, as the principal of the elementary school, has lived in good faith as an educator, such as receiving an official commendation from the Minister of Education and the undergraduate as the principal of the faculty, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. The judgment of Defendant B and the prosecutor on the unfair argument of sentencing of Defendant B committed a crime of interference with the duties of the above victims by installing containers with the knowledge of the dispute over the land owned by Defendant A, and as the manager of the N-owned real estate, the aforementioned real estate is the real estate.