Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the records of this case’s judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, Defendant A did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the due period for submission of the appellate brief despite the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records on August 12, 2020, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records, the reasons for ex officio investigation cannot be found.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss Defendant A’s appeal should be made; however, as long as a public prosecutor rendered a judgment on the appeal against the Defendants, the dismissal of appeal should not be separately decided, and a judgment should be pronounced together.

(Supreme Court Decision 69Do143 delivered on May 27, 1969, etc.). Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence (a fine of KRW 5 million is imposed on the Defendants (a fine of KRW 5 million, and a fine of KRW 3 million) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the health department and the trial on the grounds of the foregoing legal doctrine, and the reason for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appears to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.

In addition, Defendant B expressed his intention that the above victim would not be punished for Defendant B by agreement with the victim C when it comes to the trial.

In addition, in full view of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the developments and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too unhued and thus, the reasonable scope of discretion is limited.