2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in 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 judgment of the first instance court that the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, or that maintaining the sentencing of the first instance court is unreasonable 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and did not find any circumstances that may be specially considered in the trial.

The circumstances cited by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are elements that have already been determined by the lower court, and sufficiently taken into account, and examining the reasoning for sentencing of the lower court by closely comparing the records of the instant case, it does not seem that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument of this case, including the circumstances in which damage was partially recovered after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is unreasonable since the sentence of the court below is too uneasible.