beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said sentence.
When considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant did not have good health conditions due to the age of 66 years; (c) the victims lent money to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant maintained de facto marriage relations by living together with the victim F and the Defendant living together with the victim F for ten months; and (c) the circumstances alleged for sentencing favorable to the Defendant in the first instance trial appear to have been sufficiently considered while serving a sentence at the lower court; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant fraud of the same kind during the period of repeated offense and did not reach an agreement with the victims, the lower court’s sentencing judgment is too excessive to have exceeded the reasonable scope
shall not be appointed by a person.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. Conclusion.