beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake in depth, the Defendant’s infinite growth process seems to have affected the instant crime, and that the Defendant would not repeat the instant crime.
It is hard to say that it is favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant habitually destroyed the glass window of a vehicle parked 14 times more than 310,000 won in the vehicle, and thus, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the frequency of the crime and the method of the crime. The defendant had the record of criminal punishment for the same crime even before. In particular, on September 4, 2015, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime on several occasions by larceny, etc. from the Seocheon Branch Branch of the Gwangju District Court on September 4, 2015, and was sentenced to six months for punishment for the same crime on September 7, 2015, and the execution of the punishment was completed, and the victims' damage was not recovered until the trial of the party, and it is difficult to expect recovery in the future.
In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That since it is evident that there is a clerical error in the daily list of crimes attached to the court below's judgment, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure as to the crime committed list attached to this judgment).