When considering the following circumstances in the summary of the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

On November 4, 2016, which was after the judgment of the lower court was rendered, the Defendant perused and copied the records of the lower court’s trial on November 4, 2016, and when considering that the normal relation statement submitted by the Defendant as of October 21, 2016 was not bound in the records of the trial, the lower court, without taking into account the above normal relation statement, sentenced the sentence.

① The following should be taken into account: (a) the Defendant was the first offender and was led to the investigation by the investigative agency; (b) the Defendant agreed to pay the victim the consolation money of KRW 13 million on June 21, 2016 to the victim due to driving under the influence of alcohol in the instant case; and (c) the Defendant was indicted with KRW 0.148% at the beginning of the instant case with the alcohol concentration of at least 0.05% and less than 0.1% at the Ulsan District Court Decision 2014, Apr. 23, 2015 and 1264 on Apr. 23, 2015; and (b) the equity with the case on which a fine of KRW 1 million was imposed.

The punishment of the lower court is unfair or unfair means where the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or too minor in light of the substance of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes 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, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.