The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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.

The Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, has the unique area of the first deliberation about the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto in light of the nature of the appellate court’s ex post facto review, the first sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

Where it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment of the first instance court which was unfair. However, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance is not exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the sentence above.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of a political party are already revealed in the oral argument of the court below, and were considered in the course of sentencing deliberation, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial

In full view of the various circumstances that the court below committed on the grounds of sentencing and all the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable and it is not recognized that the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.