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, in light of 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, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that differs from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court, but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning by the Defendant, such as the confession and reflect of the offense committed by the Defendant, which is favorable to the sentencing of the first instance court, has already been determined in the lower court by fully considering the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment by drinking even before the instant case, was in excess of the scope of alcohol discretion.

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, the defendant's assertion is accepted.