2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In light of the above legal principles, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing data have not been submitted in the first instance trial. However, even though the Defendant has led to the confession and reflect of all of the instant crimes, as well as the victims have reached an agreement with the victims, the instant crime was committed to the extent that the Defendant sustained injury to the victims and has escaped from the victim’s vehicle to the extent that the victim would cause a traffic accident, and that the crime was not less than that of the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, motive, crime, etc.