2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In most cases, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable factor in sentencing in the trial at the trial of the lower court were revealed in the hearing of the lower court, and there is no other unfavorable changes in circumstances relating to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was made.

When the defendant was punished by a fine for drinking driving on December 2, 2016 and the license was revoked, the crime is very bad in the quality of the vehicle, the damaged vehicle is damaged by leaving the damaged vehicle back to the back, and the result of the damage is significant in the mandatory insurance.