beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of Defendant A appears to clearly have a social relation between Defendant A, such as the confession of the instant crime and the Defendant’s mistake in depth, the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to prepare medical treatment expenses while supporting a bitamless sensa, and the Defendant served as a noncommissioned Officer before the instant crime was committed. The Defendant has not been subject to criminal punishment prior to the instant crime; the Defendant’s family member, etc. wanted to have the Defendant’s prior to the instant crime; and the Defendant’s family member, etc. wished to have the Defendant’s prior to the instant crime. The instant case is deemed to be unfair if 20 or more accomplices were to have a very serious attitude in sentencing among the accomplices who were punished, it is necessary to pursue a balanced balance of sentencing to correspond to the degree of participation in the instant crime, frequency of the crime, damage amount, etc. in an appellate trial, and if two circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, circumstances of the instant crime, etc., were met, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unfair.
B. The judgment on Defendant B on the following facts: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime against his husband and wife; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime with her husband and her husband’s family member; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime with his family member’s living difficulties; (d) the Defendant did not have any past record of criminal punishment; (b) the Defendant’s family member et al. wanted the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; (c) the Defendant agreed with some of the victims of the instant case and the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the instant case was committed by more than 20 accomplices, and (e) the method of sentencing among the accomplices punished, is very serious.