beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Unfair sentencing
2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court examined the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.
In this case, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.
With respect to the cultivation of the act of the assault in this case, the court below changed the part of "one time of the victim's chest with the vinyl finite," as stated in the indictment to "(the victim's finite finite finite) by "(the victim's finite finite fin with the victim's chest" in the indictment. When examining the whole facts charged in this case, the core form of the act against the victim is maintained and only the act in the previous stage is partly changed as above, it does not constitute grounds to reduce or change the amount of fine in the summary order.
In addition, in full view of the following factors: (a) the process and content of the instant crime; (b) the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant had one time of fine; (d) the circumstances after the crime; and (e) the age, occupation, and economic aspects of the Defendant and the victim; and (e) the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument and the record, such as the relationship between the Defendant and the victim
Even if it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below that sentenced the defendant to 300,000 won by maintaining the amount of fine for the summary order as it is is is is too large to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.
Defendant.