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, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in cases where 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 the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, comprehensively considered the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, determined the sentence by considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, such as the confession and reflection of the instant crime, and the active cooperation with the investigation of narcotics, and sentenced the maximum sentence within the scope of the recommendation based on the sentencing guidelines.

There is no special change in circumstances that can change the punishment of the court below for the first time.

Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of a crime, etc., as well as various circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the lower court and the oral argument after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed as being too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.