beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable since the sentence imposed by the court below (one month of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. The lower court, taking into account the fact that the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment for fraud, the fact that the victim’s damage has not been recovered, and on the other hand, the Defendant led to confession and reflects the instant crime, and the instant crime constitutes a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which is deemed to have been concurrent crimes with the first head and the crime of this case as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and thus, should consider equity with the case of the said judgment at the same time as the said crime, the lower court, taking into account favorable circumstances, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, developments and motive leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime
When the sentencing of the lower court’s judgment is fully taken into account in the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.
As there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.
Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.
3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da36414, Nov. 10, 2016). However, the judgment of the court below is obvious that “the date of November 10, 2016” is a clerical error of “the date of September 10, 2016.” Thus, it is obvious that the ex officio correction is made pursuant