The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

A custody applicant shall be treated and custody at the request of a public prosecutor in the court.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

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 to these circumstances and the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, 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 in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence in the appellate court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant and the person requesting the custody for the treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. Considering that the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the appellate court are favorable to the sentencing in the lower court, such as the Defendant’s confession and non-offending, and that the Defendant has already been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment on the same level of punishment as the same offense.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and thus, the sentencing of the court below is respected.