2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant by taking account of the following favorable circumstances: (a) there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may newly consider sentencing in the trial; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (c) the fact that the connected account of the means of access was used for Bosing and repeatedly transferred the means of access after suspension of payment; (d) the victim was several criminal convictions due to fraud; and (e) the recidivism was committed during the period of repeated offense; and (e) the Defendant’s confession and mistake was recovered.