The defendant and the defense counsel argued the misunderstanding of facts in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, on March 30, 2017, the defendant and the defense counsel respondeded to it on March 30, 2017.

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

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health class and the grounds for each of the unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appears to have been sufficiently considered in the lower court’s determination of punishment, and the sentencing of the lower court seems to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the overall circumstances related to the sentencing of the instant case.

According to the results of each order to submit financial transaction information to the Korean bank, the Korean National Bank, and the Agricultural Cooperative Federation, etc. in the trial, the amount that the defendant paid to the victim during the crime period in preparation for the total amount of KRW 2.38 billion.