2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are circumstances: (a) the Defendant acknowledges and reflects all of the instant criminal acts; (b) the Defendant does not focus on the personal physical damage of the victim and police officer; (c) the victim does not want the punishment by mutual consent with the victim F and the police officer; and (d) the need for rehabilitation treatment after the surgery, the Defendant’s sentencing may be considered.

However, the instant crime was committed against the victim who demanded the payment of the drinking value and returning to the Republic of Korea, and was arrested as an offender in the act of committing a crime and brought into the earth to the earth, and thus, the nature of the crime was inferior, and there was a number of criminal offenses against the Defendant, as well as three criminal records against the Defendant, and four times in total with a suspended sentence of three times and one time in a suspended sentence execution, which were punished by the obstruction of the performance of official duties. In particular, the instant crime was committed again on July 21, 2015 by the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment on May 21, 2014 and was sentenced to one year and four months, and was committed again on July 21, 2015, and the Defendant was committed again on July 21, 2015, and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and result of the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, and was beyond the reasonable scope of sentencing guidelines.

However, the lower court’s sentence is too high, as long as there are no new materials that were presented in the trial.