In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.

The sentencing of the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In addition, as long as the person against whom the probation order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") has lodged an appeal against a prosecuted case, it shall be deemed that an appeal has been filed regarding a case of probation order pursuant to Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, even if the defendant did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding a case of probation order and examined the original judgment, it is difficult to find the grounds for reversal

This part of the appeal by the defendant is without merit.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate range.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime committed by the Defendant, while preparing for the excessive amount of money, threatens the victim to enter a vehicle of a victim who stops a vehicle in order to park in the department store while searching for the parking lot.