1. In light of the fact that the crime is not committed for the purpose of personal property scale or private consumption, since the local government's budget was temporarily used for gambling due to gambling addiction and repeated shift of the local government's budget due to gambling addiction, and the amount of utilization increases in one moment, the sentencing of the lower court (the imprisonment of two years and six months, additional collection of KRW 354,310,00) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances on the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial are already considered by the lower court, which has already been determined by the sentence and sufficiently taken into account.

The defendant is a local public official in charge of accounting affairs that require high ethics and integrity, and is a public official in charge of the accounting affairs that require high ethics and integrity, and the electronic records are forged and falsified.