beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by 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 solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ
(2) On July 20, 2015, the Defendant had been sentenced to a punishment for violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (free license) since July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant had been sentenced to a punishment for violation of the Road Traffic Act (free license) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (free license) since July 8, 2002. In particular, on April 1, 2012 and 2012, the Defendant committed the instant crime. The Defendant completed the execution of a punishment for violation of the Child and Juvenile Sex Protection Act (Indecent Act on Persons with Disabilities) on November 20, 2016, and had been sentenced to a repeated offense on July 8, 2017 during the repeated period, and again committed the instant crime under the influence of a driver’s license.
In light of these circumstances, it is inevitable to strictly punish the defendant who has the same crime and repeated the same crime.
In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and all of the factors of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case are considered to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion due to the fact that the sentencing of the original judgment is too inappropriate.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, the judgment of the court below is subject to Chapter 1.