beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, community service 40 hours of imprisonment) imposed on the Defendant A by the prosecutor of the first instance judgment is too uneasible and unreasonable.
B. Each sentence of the lower judgment sentenced to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment for each of the Defendants A and H, two years of suspended sentence, Defendant G Co., Ltd.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court of first instance (the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance) and the judgment of the court of first instance as to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal are sentenced ex officio prior to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the Defendants, and the judgment of the court of second instance was sentenced to the judgment of the court of second instance, and the Defendants filed an appeal against the Defendants, and the court of second instance decided to hold concurrent hearings. The first and second judgments of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and are sentenced to a single punishment. In this respect, the part against Defendant A in the judgment of first and second judgment cannot be maintained.
B. Although there are favorable circumstances for the above Defendants, such as the following: (a) examining the judgment on the assertion of Defendant H and G Co., Ltd.; (b) recognizing all the facts charged against the above Defendants; (c) completing the restoration to the F&O’s land to the original state; and (d) deeming that the restoration to the original state was completed for the land of Young-gun; (b) there is no good quality of the crime, such as the volume of wastes buried in illegal land exceeds 12,00 tons; (c) there is a history of criminal punishment on one occasion by a fine for violating the Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act; and (d) there is other history of criminal punishment on several occasions, such as a sentence, on one occasion, by Defendant H.; and (e) the lower court.