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 ex post facto and aesthetic nature of the appellate court, 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 rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the appellate court solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the scope of discretion but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning, such as: (a) the Defendant led the Defendant to a crime; (b) the Defendant was an initial offender without criminal history; and (c) the victim did not have suffered sexual humiliation from another victim.