A. The sentencing of the lower court’s judgment (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the lower judgment by the Prosecutor is too uneasible.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

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 sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The lower court, among the grounds asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, has already taken into account the nature of the instant crime, the process and method of the instant crime, the motive and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s contingent crime, among the grounds alleged on the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor, as well as the victim’s grounds of appeal, as well as the victim’s grounds of not having been punished, in the lower court already determined

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect against the defendant in the first instance, and further compensation for damage to the victim seems to have been made.

A victim shall also be subject to further examination at the same time.