beta
Text
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.
3.Provided, That.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of 2 million won, a fine of 6 million won, and a fine of 6 million won) is too uneased.
2. A favorable condition is that the Defendants are against themselves, and the fact that the Defendants voluntarily removed their reputation and completed restoration to their original state, and that the Defendants did not have any past record of punishment exceeding the fine.
However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendants in collusion with the competent authorities and occupied the river area by setting up a flat and lending money to the citizens who found the place of such act without permission. In light of the legislative purpose of the river law, etc., the crime of this case is not good. Defendant B committed the crime of this case even though there was a record of punishment for the same kind of crime in around 2016. The competent authorities prior to the control of the integration of this case sent a public notice to conduct a joint control on the occupation and use of the river without permission of the smuggling, and the Defendants took the above business for their economic interest. In particular, even if the media promotion was made through the first act of violation, the Defendants were to voluntarily remove the first act after the detection of the first act of violation, and immediately re-establish it, and attempted to engage in the loan business at ordinary times, which is disadvantageous to the local community, and it is necessary to repeat the crime of this case.
In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable, taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and the circumstances after the commission of the crime.
Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is justified.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's prosecutor against the Defendants.