The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one hundred and sixty years of probation and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order in October) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct determination under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, the sentencing judgment of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following factors: (a) the conditions of sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process and the sentencing criteria, etc.

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 Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime is intended to issue a large amount of money exceeding KRW 320 million over a considerable period of time by requesting D to select a trader and provide various convenience to the person who has overall control over the EM business of the EM group. In light of the period of the instant crime and the scale of the crime, it is necessary to pronounce strict punishment against the Defendant in consideration of the nature of the crime and the degree of the crime, etc.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant has no criminal record of the same kind of imprisonment or heavier punishment; (b) the Defendant appears to have planned the crime first; (c) from around 2013, the Defendant voluntarily suspended the crime from around 2013; and (d) the attitude of reflecting the depth of the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime were committed, the lower court also considered the aforementioned circumstances.