All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.
The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.
A. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant to commit the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it is not deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.
The defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.
B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no significant change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing of Defendant after the lower judgment.
The conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case and the judgment of the court below.