beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service for 160 hours) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). The Defendant’s each crime of this case was committed against the victims, and the injury suffered by the victims is not easy, and the victims wanted to punish the victims by failing to agree with the victims.
However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case, and the fact that the defendant did not have any other criminal records than the previous criminal records of a single-use fine.
In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court appears to have sentenced to community service and the observation of protection along with the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from that of the lower court in the trial.
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.
We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.
3. The prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, it is ex officio, and the judgment of the court below’s dismissal of “victims” as “victims” under Article 25(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure as “victims.”