The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated in the petition of appeal only that the defendant misleads the facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unjustly appealed the sentencing, and did not state specific grounds for appeal.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We affirm the judgment of the court below by comparing the judgment of the court below with the records. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Improper sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on statutory penalty, within a reasonable and reasonable scope.

However, considering the unique area of the 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 first instance judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions and sentencing guidelines of the 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 judgment of the first instance court as it is for the sentencing of the first instance.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions in the trial, and there is no other change in the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, circumstance, means, and consequence of the crime.