beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake, that some of the crimes were committed, or that the actual result of damage was not significant due to the return of a part of an attempted crime, etc., is favorable to the Defendant, or that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime even before. However, the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime that was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months due to habitual fraud, and that the instant crime constitutes a special larceny under Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and the lower limit of the statutory penalty is one year, which constitutes a special larceny under Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act. The lower court, taking into account the favorable circumstances for the Defendant, omitted indication of discretionary mitigation in the applicable column of the statutes.
Considering the extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the sentence was sentenced to the lowest sentence, and other circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the age, character and conduct, environment, occupation and family relation of the defendant, the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.
3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.
However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 35 of the Criminal Act is amended as “1....... repeated offender A: Defendant A: from among repeated offenders,” Article 35 of the Criminal Act is amended as “Article 35 of the Criminal Act” in the column of the application of the law, which clearly states that it is a clerical error in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.
.