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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances alleged by the Defendant as favorable factors in sentencing in the trial, including the fact that the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult, or that the Defendant suffers from mental and behavioral disorder, etc., are mostly revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and most of the circumstances that the Defendant argued as favorable factors in sentencing, such as the fact that the Defendant was going to the hearing process of the lower court, or that the Defendant was trying to treat Alco addiction, are difficult to view the lower court’s punishment as a change of circumstances that could be mitigated.

In addition, considering the fact that the defendant has not reached an agreement with the victims during the trial of the party, the defendant's age, sexual conduct and environment, criminal records, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the court below is too excessive to the extent of discretion.