In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope. In our criminal litigation law, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there exists a unique area for the first deliberation

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in cases where 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 rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s decision (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing in the first instance court, such as the confession of the Defendant and the contingent crime, are sufficiently considered while rendering a sentence in the lower court, and are forced to commit an indecent act against the victim, who has no awareness of the Defendant, and have been punished by the same kind of crime during the grace period.