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 of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable

It is difficult to find any change in the special sentencing conditions that can change the sentence of the court below for the first time.

In full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of a crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant does not seem to be unfair on the grounds that the lower court’s punishment exceeds the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit.