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

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the fact that the instant crime is committed, the instant crime is committed against the attempted crime, and the Defendant does not have any past record or criminal record exceeding the fine, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not likely to be a crime due to an attempted rape after having the victim, who is the primary victim, who was under the influence of alcohol, taken the her mother, and attempted to rape. The victim appears to have suffered a considerable physical pain along with a sense of sexual shame, and the victim refused to agree and deposit up to the depth of the party.