2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists an area unique to the first instance court’s determination of sentencing. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. It is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion on the Defendants, considering all of the reasons stated by the lower court.

In full view of the fact that the Defendants did not seem to have seen, the Defendants’ argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.