beta
Text
The judgment below
The crime of forging each private document in the judgment, Nos. 5 through 10 of the attached list of crimes (1) and the attached list.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair form) sentenced the defendant to the following punishments. The court below sentenced each of the crimes of forging each private document listed in the annexed list (1) through (4) and each of the crimes of uttering of each private document listed in the annexed list (2) No. 1 through (4) of the annexed list of crimes (1) to the annexed list of crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, each of the crimes of forging each private document listed in the annexed list (1) to 5 to 10 of the annexed list of crimes (2) and each of the crimes of uttering of each private document listed in the annexed list of crimes (2) to 5 to 10 of the annexed list of crimes are unfair.
2. Determination
A. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the directness principle as to each of the crimes of forging a private document in the annexed list (1) through (4) and the crime of uttering of each of the above investigation document in the annexed list (2) Nos. 1 through 4, there are unique areas of the first instance trial as to the determination of sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto nature of the appellate trial, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing in the first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it, and even if the sentence in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from sentencing a sentence different from the first instance trial on the sole ground that the sentence in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the opinion in the appellate trial is different from
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the time of examination and trial in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles. In full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and all the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and trial process of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
B. Each fraud, separate crime list (1) Nos. 5 through 10 per annum, each of the following crimes, and the list of offenses (2) No. 5.0 per annum.