2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and aesthetic nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from sentencing by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance differs from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant criminal acts, and cooperates with the investigation, it is difficult to find out the circumstances that the Defendant committed the instant criminal act again during a repeated period after being punished as a single crime, and deliver it to another person without simply administering cellphones, and thus, it is difficult to take into account the circumstances that the Defendant’s motive and appearance of the instant criminal act were found disadvantageous to the Defendant’s age.