beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The court below's sentence (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence in August, 200, 3 years of probation) declared by the court below against the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. We also examine the Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s argument on unfair sentencing regarding Defendant A.
Defendant
In light of the fact that A had been sentenced to a fine for the same crime even before the instant case, Defendant A seems to play a leading role in the crime of acquiring stolen property of this case, Defendant A could take a total of 115 mobile phones over 17 times, and most of the amount of damage is not repaid even though the amount of damage is reasonable, and the crime of acquiring stolen property of the mobile phone of this case, such as this case, has an aspect of promoting the crime of larceny of a mobile phone or embezzlement of stolen property, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant A.
On the other hand, there are favorable circumstances for Defendant A, such as the fact that Defendant A led to the confession of the instant crime, and the fact that the said victim did not want to be punished against Defendant A by agreement with the victim of the mobile phone 13 mobile phone.
Ultimately, in full view of the following circumstances: Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, details and contents leading to the instant crime, and circumstances leading to the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be proper; thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant A and the Prosecutor is without merit.
B. Although Defendant B had a record of criminal punishment over several occasions prior to the instant case, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and the confession of the instant crime and reflects it, and it seems that the degree of participation in the instant stolen acquisition does not focus on the degree of participation, and that there is no significant benefit from the said crime.