A. Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within the statutory period.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (3 million won) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the lower judgment and filed an appeal on May 27, 2016, and served a notice of receipt of litigation records and a notice of appointment of counsel on June 22, 2016, and requested the appointment of counsel on June 23, 2016. However, this court rendered a ruling to dismiss the request for appointment of counsel on June 24, 2016, and even if the Defendant was served with a certified copy of the said ruling on dismissal on July 4, 2016, it is apparent that the Defendant did not submit the reason for appeal within 20 days, which is the due reason for appeal, even if it was served on the certified copy of the said ruling on July 4, 2016, and it is apparent that the petition of appeal does not include the reason for appeal, and it is difficult to find any reason for ex officio examination without examining the record.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal should be dismissed in accordance with Article 361-4 (1) and Article 361-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court of first instance on the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court of first instance, and if the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance is somewhat different from the judgment of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds that new materials of sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive, means and consequence of the crime