2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). We examine the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

The judgment below

There is no new special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing of the defendant after the sentence is sentenced.

In addition, taking into account the final sentence (10 months of imprisonment and confiscation) with respect to accomplice B based on the sentencing precedent of the same kind of case, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances that form the sentencing conditions appearing in the records and pleadings of this case, including the motive of the criminal act against the victim of the age, criminal administration, and environment of the defendant, and the circumstances after the criminal act, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed to be too heavy or less than the reasonable scope of discretion, compared with the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments of the defendant and prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.