beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Part 1 of the Defendant case) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of stopping the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability and injury. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing [one-year imprisonment, seven years of disclosure and notification order, seven years of forfeiture (No. 1)] is too unreasonable.
B. It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to be put on probation for three years, although there is no risk of recommitting sexual crimes and robbery in the part of the request for probation order.
2. Determination
A. 1) The defendant in the judgment of the court below also asserted as above in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the defendant's argument on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court below is justified after closely comparing the records, the defendant's assertion of mental and physical disability is without merit. 2) The sentencing of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, etc. In addition, in the event the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it, and it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the judgment on the grounds that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In relation to the instant case, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account both favorable or unfavorable sentencing conditions against the Defendant and other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act. In so doing, compared to the lower court’s judgment, the lower court has determined the sentence against the Defendant.