beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The first instance court’s punishment against Defendant A of the Prosecutor (a fine of four million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. The Defendants’ punishment of the second instance court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and three years of imprisonment for Defendant D) is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor against the judgment of ex officio, the court of first instance and the court of second instance concurrently examined the appeal cases by the court of second instance against the defendant A. The crimes in the first and second judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be punished as a single sentence within the term of punishment or amount increased by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.
3. Defendant D was punished once by a fine due to an act of violence, three times the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and was sentenced to 10 months due to an act of violence in 209 and two years of the suspension of the execution of the sentence, and was committed by the second instance court during the suspension of the execution of the sentence. In light of the circumstances and contents of the above act of crime, the nature of the crime is poor, and the degree of injury is important to punish Defendant D with severe punishment.
However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including Defendant D’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive leading to the instant crime, circumstance before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable, in full view of the following: (a) the confession of the instant crime was made once in the trial; (b) the detention was made for a considerable period of time; and (c) the victim I did not repeat again; (d) the victim I was additionally deposited at the time of the investigation; and (e) there was no specific penalty power after the suspension of execution was sentenced in around 209; and (e) the court below’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable.