beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, as a physically handicapped person with a disability of the fourth degree of disability, is prone to life without seeking a stable workplace, and therefore, there are extenuating circumstances in light of the circumstances, the damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not so significant, and the defendant is in depth of his mistake, etc. In light of the fact that the defendant's punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant not only had the record of having been punished for a crime of the same kind, but also had the record of being punished for a crime of the same kind, and before five months have passed since he/she committed the crime of the same kind as the instant crime, he/she committed the crime of the fraud against the victim AK, which constitutes a repeated crime.
I began to stop.
Until the trial, damage recovery measures have not been properly taken.
In addition, considering the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, as well as the age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant case, including favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant.
3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That since it is apparent that the “application of the law” column of the judgment of the court below was omitted from “Article 35 of the Criminal Act (except for fraud against Victim AK)” due to mistake, the court below states that both the “criminal facts” column includes the criminal records of repeated offense, and the “reasons for sentencing” column of the judgment of the court below that the Defendant committed the fraud under the same veterinary method during the period of repeated offense, and therefore, the aggravated provision of the repeated offense was omitted as a mistake in the “application of the law” column