The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(2) The lower court’s decision on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and even considering the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court is deemed unreasonable because it is too unreasonable (it is recognized that the Defendant denied a part of the crime in the lower court, but led to the Defendant’s refusal to commit a crime in the lower court, and the Defendant’s confessions it at the trial, and violates his/her depth, but does not recover from damage until the trial at the trial at the lower court, and considering

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.