The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) 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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as favorable factors for sentencing in the trial at the court of the lower court were mostly revealed in the oral proceedings of the lower court, and instead of reducing the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to make a change of KRW 18 million on September 25, 2017, with the remainder of KRW 15 million on September 5, 2017, and the Defendant was bound on the date of the lower judgment after paying KRW 300,000 on September 25, 2017. Although the father of the Defendant was aware that the Defendant paid additional KRW 500,000 to the victim, the Defendant was unable to deem the aforementioned agreement to have been reached as a criminal victim’s obligation reduction or exemption, the Defendant continued to pay the Defendant’s obligation to the victim for a prolonged settlement.