2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance is not within a reasonable and reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s sentencing is different from that of the first instance judgment, and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the second instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the lower court considered that the victim’s sexual organ who was aware of his body before the victim’s death or body was sexually disabled by the victim’s consent.

In addition, there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, and there is a attitude that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect in depth the instant crime.