Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

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 trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the instant legal doctrine based on the foregoing, the lower court, as alleged by the prosecutor, takes full account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s conditions for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, i.e., removal of an elector’s right to know, the fairness of election, and the usefulness of election management, etc.; (b) the Defendant’s confession and reflects the instant crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have no political intent or purpose to influence the election; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (e) the means and method of the instant crime.