In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

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, considering these circumstances and the appellate court’s ex post facto in-depth nature, 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 of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the victims who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the grounds that the sentencing of the Defendant, including the first instance court, led to the confession of the crime by the Defendant and the first instance court without criminal history, was well favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant at the lower court, and that the Defendant did not suffer from considerable mental pain or injury during the period of one year and one year and one year and one year and one more.

I am.