beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for 10 months, each of the defendants B, C, and E.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the confession of the Defendants and the misunderstandings, etc., the imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2, 3 and E sentenced to the Defendant A and the imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and 6 months sentenced to the Defendant D are too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the instant case, the Defendants had already been punished for the same or different types of crimes (the Defendants A and E, the suspension of the execution of fines and imprisonment with prison labor, and the rest of the Defendants). In particular, Defendant E was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months for the crime of acquiring stolen property, and the judgment on February 21, 2014 became final and conclusive, and Defendant C committed the instant crime, and Defendant C committed a violation of discipline during pre-trial detention in Seongdong-gu as the instant case, which is disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, both the Defendants and the victims are recognized to commit the instant crime, and each joint intimidation against the victim'sO and S is in competition with each other at the same place where the Defendants and the victims were engaged in business activities related to large-scale purchase of mobile phones at the same place, and thus they were in the process of giving and taking abusive opinions, which is not more severe than the degree of intimidation, and it seems that the Defendants and the victims have been engaged in business activities after the existence of the Defendants and the victims. Defendant D's criminal facts merely interfered with the victim T when taking a bath for the victim T, and the victims wanted to take the front of the crime. The victims wanted to take the front of the crime by mutual consent with the Defendants. Defendant B and C do not have any history of punishment other than fines. Examining the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendants' age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court's punishment against the Defendants is too unfair.
3. Conclusion.