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, considering 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 of the appellate court, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant did not appear to have committed the crime while denying the crime; and (b) the Defendant did not receive a written application from the victimized person; and (c) the Defendant did not have any record of age 79; and (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to suspend the execution and the sentence.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion.