beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below's scope of the trial in this case ruled not guilty on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts in Public Crows), which are the primary facts charged, and found only the defendant guilty on the attempted larceny, which is the ancillary facts charged, and appealed on the guilty part of the judgment below on the ground of unfair sentencing. The part not guilty (the primary facts charged) which was not appealed by the prosecutor, was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and was virtually relieved from the object of the trial (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010, etc.). Accordingly, the court below's judgment in this case should be judged only on the ancillary facts charged, which were found guilty, and it does not be judged again on the primary part of the facts charged.
2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
3. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the fact that the instant crime was committed in the course of attempted crime and did not cause property damage to the victim, and that the Defendant recognized and reflected the Defendant’s criminal act.
However, the crime of this case was committed in a bus where a large number of people get aboard, and the defendant had a record of criminal punishment nine times, and three times of criminal punishment for the same crime of larceny, as well as all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and changes of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment without prison labor cannot be deemed to be unfair despite the above favorable circumstances.
Therefore, the defendant's improper argument in sentencing is rejected.
4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.