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.

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). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

The fact that the defendant seems to be against the defendant by recognizing the crime of this case, the amount of damage is not significant, and the defendant does not want the punishment of the victim by paying the victim the amount of damage, etc. is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished not less than 10 times as a crime of fraud of the method of taking a war at amusement centers, etc., and the defendant was punished not less than 10 times as a crime of habitual fraud of the same method, and was in the period of repeated crime after he was sentenced to punishment for the crime of habitual fraud.