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). Other circumstances asserted by the Defendant as favorable factors in sentencing in the trial of the lower court, including the fact that the Defendant cooperates with the narcotics investigation business, etc., mostly during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines and the matters favorable to sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was pronounced (other than the Defendant’s cooperation in investigation confirmed by the lower court, the fact that there is more narcotics reported by the Defendant except for the case of the Defendant’s cooperation in investigation confirmed by the lower court, cannot be deemed as a circumstance that reduce the sentence of the lower court in light of the fact that the Defendant’s cooperation in the investigation of narcotics appears to have been sufficiently reflected in the sentencing of the lower court). In addition, the Defendant committed the instant crime only for two months after the completion of repeated crime execution during the period.