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

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the said sentence by taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant, under the circumstances that the Defendant had a drinking driving force and seems to have been under the influence of alcohol again; (b) the Defendant again refused a police officer’s demand for a reasonable drinking test of traffic accidents; (c) the Defendant’s refusal of a police officer’s demand for a drinking alcohol test; (d) the Defendant was a justifiable party that should be exemplary to others; (e) the Defendant has no power to sentence; (e) the history of a drinking driving; and (e) the fact