beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the original court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal principles on the judgment of the lower court refers to cases where the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case. In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court. On the other hand, in light of the following factors: (a) in the event that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of the discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing guidelines specified in the process of the lower court’s examination; or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing examination, the appellate court should reverse the unfair judgment of the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2)
In light of the circumstances that the court below decided and the grounds for sentencing up to the trial, the court below rendered recommendations based on the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission based on Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act, i.e., one year and nine years and six months of imprisonment in the range of imprisonment, i.e., one year and nine months through five years and four months, where medical treatment and custody are concurrently imposed, medical treatment and custody shall be executed first, and the execution period of medical treatment and custody shall be included in the execution period (Article 18 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act), and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below, it is not unreasonable to deem that the sentence imposed by the
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
(b) medical treatment and custody;