beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
The "2019........." seized in the disposition shall be Hansan.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) when the defendant was in a trial, the fact that all of his/her mistakes are recognized and reflected; (b) part of the damaged goods were returned to the victims; and (c) some victims do not want punishment of the defendant.
On the other hand, in light of the background, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, there is a very bad character of the crime, the history of punishment including imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and in particular, there is no awareness of compliance such as repeated committing during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the risk of recidivism is very high, and there is a need to isolate the defendant from society for a long time in light of the criminal history and details of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc.
Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.