Do 2016 Do 11422 A. Violation of the Punishment Act (joint confinement)

(b) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)

(3) (Special Bodily Injury to the Name of the changed crime)

(c) Habitual special violence;

(d) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse);

(e) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual neglect of a child);

1. (a) b. (c) d. B (Gain: C);

2. (a) b. (c) d. D

Defendant 1

Attorney AE (Korean national ships to hear Defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016-767 decided July 1, 2016

2016,9.23

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the argument purporting that the lower court’s deliberation on the basic facts of sentencing and that there was a violation of logical rules, and that there was illegality of mistake as to the same, constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing. In full view of various circumstances, including Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., as indicated in the record, the determination of punishment by the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced Defendant 10 years of imprisonment with labor, is extremely unfair, even if considering the circumstances of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion, is considered.

2. As to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, the argument to the effect that Defendant D’s ground of appeal was insufficient to review the basic facts of sentencing and that there was a violation of logical rules, and that there was illegality of mistake in fact, constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing. However, according to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than 10 years is imposed, an appeal against Defendant D solely for the reason that the sentence was unfair is allowed. Thus, the argument to the effect that the Defendant’s judgment of punishment was unfair in the instant case where a minor sentence was sentenced cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de