2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court’s first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering the favorable circumstances that the instant crime was led to the absence of criminal records above the same kind of crime and the absence of a simple conviction and possession of marijuana, and there is no need to take into account the reasonable motive and risk of the Defendant’s.

3...