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, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth 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 the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that differs from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing in the appellate court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendants, citing the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, sentenced the Defendants to the above punishment, such as: (a) the Defendants were led to the confession of and against the crimes; (b) the Defendants committed the robbery of the basic criminal force in the case of robbery; and (c) the Defendants had already been sentenced to more reasonable punishment than the first instance court’s punishment in light of the circumstances favorable to the sentencing of the same type of the Defendants.

It does not seem that there is a change in the conditions of sentencing in the court.