In this regard, only the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion, and all the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal on each of the above innocence portion, so the aforementioned acquittal portion in the judgment below was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the remainder (the part which the original court found guilty of the defendant) except the above acquittal portion among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant committed the instant crime, such as intrusion upon another’s residence or intrusion upon another’s residence and theft of property, despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times, including imprisonment for the same thief crime, during the period of repeated crime, despite the fact that he/she had been punished several times of punishment, and the frequency of the crime or the amount of damage is considerable, and it is inevitable to punish the Defendant.

Although the defendant made a confession from the trial to the previous trial all the facts charged, the court below's punishment is established in consideration of the evidence relationship.