beta
Text
1. Defendant A
A. Article 1-A of the judgment of the court below
All parts of the crimes except for those committed shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court (e.g., two months of imprisonment, three years of probation, three years of probation, three years of probation, one of three years of community service, 120 hours, and five million won of fine) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination on Defendant A’s appeal 1) The judgment of the court below as to Defendant A’s appeal of the crime of this case is deemed to have been led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, and most land areas have been restored to the original state by transfer of illegal act, but considering the fact that the above Defendant was not obligated to restore to the original state even after having received a corrective order several times, the area of the land where the illegal act was committed is large, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence of the court below as to the crime of this case is excessively unreasonable. Accordingly, this part of Defendant A’s appeal of this case is without merit.
The judgment of the court below that sentenced a single sentence on the ground that Defendant A’s ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal on the remaining crimes except for the crime is unlawful since the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal on this part of this part of this case by the court below, although Article 92 of the Clean Air Conservation Act only provides for a fine not exceeding three million won, the court below selected imprisonment not provided for in the Act on the violation of the same Act, and then deemed that the remaining crimes are concurrent crimes with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus,
B. It is recognized that most land areas of the judgment on the appeal filed by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) were restored to the original state due to the transfer of the illegal act, but there is a record of fine as to Defendant B even around February 2, 2012.