beta
Text
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
Defendant
A does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal declared 300,000 won to the Defendants, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unfair, and the Defendants asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
2. We examine both the judgment prosecutor and the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.
First, with respect to the sentencing of Defendant B, C, D, E, and F, the above Defendants were first offenders or did not have any criminal record, and there was a mistake in the trial court. The Defendants suffered inconvenience and considerable mental suffering up to now due to noise and vibration caused by the lectures in the tunnel construction project, and the Defendants demanded measures to bring about inconvenience and pain on several occasions prior to their collective action, but the Defendants’ demand for measures to be taken due to the lack of inconvenience and pain on the part of the construction company and Busan City. The Defendants agreed to the damaged company in the trial process of the lower court, and there was no later agreed by the Defendants to exercise their collective action or actual power, and the Defendants did not exercise their physical power, taking into account the motive and background of the crime in this case, the age and character of the above Defendants, and the environment, etc., the sentencing of the lower court seems to be too unreasonable.
Next, although there are grounds for sentencing favorable to Defendant A’s sentencing with regard to the sentencing, the above Defendant, as the chairperson of the emergency countermeasures against the apartment of this case, is the most serious part of his participation. Thus, it is reasonable to place discrimination with the above Defendant, and in addition, the above Defendant’s request for prior action against the above Defendant, instead of taking account of the circumstances such as the fact that the above Defendant, as the chairperson of the emergency measures against the apartment of this case, would be responsible for leading the crime, should accept the Prosecutor’s assertion that the above Defendant’s punishment is too weak for the lower court.
3. Conclusion, the prosecutor's defendant .