2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court that the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, or that maintaining the sentencing of the first instance court is unreasonable in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence on the grounds of sentencing, as stated in its holding, by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, and did not find any circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial.

In particular, considering the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed in a systematic and planned fashion; (b) the Defendant also plays an important role as a member; and (c) the maximum amount of damage caused by the instant crime reaches KRW 364 million and the damage was rarely recovered, etc., the Defendant’s severe punishment against the Defendant is inevitable; and (d) the determination of the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, considering all other circumstances of the defendant's assertion as grounds for appeal, the sentence of the court below is too vague.