The punishment of the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate range.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where the first instance court’s judgment of sentencing was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing review, and the sentencing guidelines, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance judgment as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered during the appellate court’

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing decision in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing guidelines after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In light of the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the instant records and pleadings, even if the Defendant considered all the circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it has no reason to appeal.