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 sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the punishment by the Defendant on the grounds of

It is difficult to find out any significant change in sentencing conditions as much as to change the sentence of the court below for the first time.

In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, crime history, relationship with the victim, defrauded amount, degree of damage recovery, crime quality, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion, even if it is considered that the Defendant was fully recognized of the crime of this case at the time of the trial.