2016No1298 A. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a joint ascendant injury);

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.(b)(D)

5.(a) E

Defendants

Trial proceedings, including the static (prosecution) and the fixed number of personnel.

Law Firm R (for all the defendants)

[Attorney S]

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Gohap4715 Decided April 15, 2016

January 31, 2017

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A, D: each fine of 2 million won, Defendant B, and C: each fine of 3 million won, each of the fines of 1 million won, and Defendant E) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

Defendant B, C, and D have no record of criminal punishment, and Defendant A and E have no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, as the court below properly explained in the reasons for sentencing, the defendants forced the defendant to open to an officetel which has been prepared in advance by deceiving the victim for 69 hours or more, and committed an injury to the victim in the course of committing the crime. Since the victim seems to have satisfed considerable fear, it does not mean that the case is less complicated. Furthermore, the victim still did not recover family relationship and was punished against the defendants. In addition, if the defendants committed the crime of this case, it seems that there was some problem about the distribution of inherited property with the victim (as a record of recording submitted by the investigative agency, the defendant C had a serious conflict between the mother and the victim, such as not obsing the victim) and there was no change in the sentencing conditions.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not deemed unreasonable, considering the following circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-sik

Judges Yu Byung-ho

Reinforcement of Judges