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.

The Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, has the unique area of the first deliberation about the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto in light of the nature of the appellate court’s ex post facto review, the first sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

The appellate court should reverse the judgment of the first instance, where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review. However, in the event that there are no changes in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that an agreement was reached between the Defendant and the victims was already considered in the judgment of the lower court, and there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the lower court, and there was no change in the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the consequence, etc. of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.