2. The court’s determination of the sentence that is unfair under Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act means that the exercise of discretionary power to judge is unfair to the extent that it is permitted to exercise discretion. Ultimately, it means that the exercise of discretionary power to judge is inappropriate, starting from the type of punishment to the sentence through the applicable sentences, thereby causing unfair penalty.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a unique area of the sentencing judgment of the first instance court, based on the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, which is based on the discretion of judges that take into account the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

Therefore, considering the circumstances where the illegality of the judgment of the court of first instance is proven by limiting the nature as an appellate court’s inner part, it is necessary to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance only where the illegality of the judgment of the court of first instance is proven. As a result of the examination of whether the sentencing of the court of first instance is unfair, the conditions of sentencing are not changed compared to the judgment of the court of first instance and the sentencing of the court of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant’s crime of this case does not return the victim under the influence of alcohol safely at home, but goes into the telecom, and is defective.