logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.09.24 2019노2829
특수협박등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the lower court (e., a fine of five million won) is deemed unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. In light of the following: (a) the circumstance unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in the trial, such as: (b) the Defendant’s threat of the victim, damage to the victim’s goods, etc.; and (c) the failure to receive a letter of suspicion from the victim, etc., is sufficiently considered in the lower court’s sentence; (d) the Defendant made a confession and statement at an investigative agency that he/she would be against the offense; and (e) there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, the lower court’s sentencing judgment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (e) there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the trial; and (e) it is reasonable to respect

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion.

arrow