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

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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects it, and that the Defendant cooperates with the lower court and the lower court in the investigation.

However, considering the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to eight times of punishment for the same crime, the fact that the defendant repeatedly handles the penphones during the repeated crime period, the fact that the court below already determined the punishment in consideration of the defendant's investigative cooperation, and other various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.