beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the records, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance on January 29, 2015, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime along with the statement of unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal on January 29, 2015, and the defense counsel asserted mistake of facts in the statement of grounds of appeal on February 2, 2015. The court below’s first trial date stated each of the above grounds of appeal and withdrawn a mistake of facts on the second trial date, and did not clearly withdraw the allegation of mental disorder
However, examining the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of commission of the crime, the act of the accused before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability at the time of the instant crime, and such omission of judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.
In addition, the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing established by the provisions of Article 81-2 of the Court Organization Act are general and objective criteria that are set up for rational sentencing in criminal trials, so they shall be respected in selecting the types of punishment and determining the sentence, but they shall not have the legal binding force.
(Article 81-7 (1) of the Court Organization Act). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the judgment of the court below is unlawful because it violated sentencing guidelines.
In addition, examining the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, behavior, intelligence and environment of the defendant, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., the determination of the court below that sentenced the defendant to 10 years of imprisonment is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the defense counsel.
Therefore, it is therefore.