A. The sentence imposed by the court below by the defendant, the person against whom the attachment order was requested, and the person who requested the probation order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of sentencing on the part of the defendant's case is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under 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, etc.). The lower court found that (i) the Defendant was an unfavorable circumstance; (ii) the Defendant was aware of the cause of divorce by the victim; and (iii) the Defendant was aware of the cause of divorce; and (iv) the remainder of the Defendant, leaving the Defendant informed of the cause of divorce so that the Defendant could not find out the cause of divorce; and (iii) the Defendant was able to find out the victim who was living together with his or her personal location tracking devices, etc.; and (iv) the Defendant was killed through a planned crime.