2. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are areas unique to the first instance judgment regarding sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant was punished five times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and five times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and all of the Defendant was tried again and tried again during the instant crime while being tried again due to a suspended sentence of a fine or imprisonment.

In addition, it is confirmed that the defendant committed a crime of different species (in particular, violent crimes) and has been punished several times. In light of the criminal records of the defendant and the circumstances of each of the crimes of this case, it seems that the defendant is extremely weak to observe the law, and that the risk of recidivism is higher than that of the defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. and all the sentencing conditions shown in the trial process, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant, and otherwise, the lower court’s sentencing may be changed.