beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.
The crime of this case is recognized as disadvantageous to the defendant, such as that the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the victim of KRW 40 million, that the criminal liability is heavy in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, that the defendant did not agree with the victim, and that the same criminal records of the defendant are several times.
However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are also recognized, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, that the defendant deposited 5 million won for the recovery of the victim's damage when the defendant was in the first instance, that the defendant's family members want to escape the defendant's preference to the defendant, that the defendant must support his wife and her children, etc.
On the other hand, in our criminal litigation law taking the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists an area unique to the first instance court, 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and the unfavorable or favorable circumstances against the recognized accused do not constitute a special change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court.
In addition, the court below’s sentencing takes place within the reasonable scope of discretion when considering all the circumstances forming the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., and it is not recognized that the court below’s punishment is too heavy as the Defendant asserts, or that it is unfair because it is too unfluent as alleged by the prosecutor.
Therefore, it is true.