The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 for each of the Defendants) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendants is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendants, in light of the attitude of the Defendants’ act of suppressing the victims from escape by driving the victims’ eye or binding their arms, etc.
However, Defendants C, D, F, and G were the parents of the victims who want to maintain their family relations, such as the victims, and were involved in the instant crime in order to assist the victims, and there are circumstances that may be considered in the motive for the instant crime, and even if the Defendants did not have any past record of criminal punishment, there are other favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing of the instant case, such as the punishment of the victims, by considering the following circumstances: (a) the remaining Defendants took into account: (b) the Defendants’ participation in the instant crime in order to assist the victims; and (c) the Defendants did not have any past record of criminal punishment; and (d) the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot
The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
1. Of the pertinent legal provisions and the choice of punishment for criminal facts (the Defendants), the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016)’s “The Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016)” is clear that it is a clerical error, and such ex officio rectification is made in accordance with Article 25