beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The court below, among the facts charged against the defendant, sentenced the defendant to three months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1-A, the crime No. 4-9 (1) to 9 (1) to 1-B), the crime No. 1-B, and the crime No. 1-B (1) to 1-3 (1) to 1-B), among the crime No. 1-B of the judgment, exempted the defendant from punishment for the crime No. 1-A of the judgment, among the crimes No. 1-B, the crime No. 1-B (1), the crime No. 4-9 (1) to 9 (9) to 1-B), and the crime No. 1-C (1).
Therefore, since the part of the crime No. 1-B of the judgment of the court below, among the crimes of No. 1-B of the judgment of the court below, the crime No. 1-D of the judgment, and the part of the crime No. 1-D of the judgment, is separated and confirmed as it is without appeal by both the defendant and the prosecutor, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the court below, the crime No. 4-9 of the daily list No. 1-B, and the crime of No. 1
The sentence of the court below (three months of imprisonment) against the defendant in summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the confession of the crime of this case by the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has reached a unanimous agreement with the victim.
However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, without registering his lending business, by lending money to two female women, and by paying interest exceeding the autonomy of the court. In that process, the victim was threatened and by force was used to collect claims. In light of the contents of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of even though he was during the period of probation, and in our criminal litigation law where the court-oriented principle and direct principle are applied, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first trial court, and the first trial sentencing is reasonable scope of the discretion.