beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of damage to property and assault against the Victim G, and dismissed the prosecution on each of the assault against the Victim C and D. The Prosecutor appealed the remainder except the dismissed part among the lower judgment.
Therefore, the rejection of the public prosecution for which no appeal has been filed is separated and confirmed as it is, this part is excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this Court.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to 6 million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.
3. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).
There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below is assessed.
Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is not accepted.
4. Conclusion.