The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle as to the grounds for appeal, there exists a unique area of the first instance trial as to the determination of sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance is not exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from rendering a sentence without any difference from the first instance judgment on the ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the lower court’s opinion is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the scope of participation in the first instance judgment is the organization of all the sentencing factors in the trial process of this case and the scope of recommendation for sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

In full view of the foregoing, the lower court’s sentencing is too large and is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. On September 18, 2018, the applicant filed a claim for provisional return to the head of the 50,000 won branch office of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor's office at the public prosecutor'

As such, since the damage of the applicant for compensation was restored, the application for compensation in this case is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation is dismissed in accordance with Article 32 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g