The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in its judgment, 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the table 1 to 23 and each of the crimes listed in the table 2 to 11 of the crime committed in the table 1 to 23 of the crime committed in the judgment below, and 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the table 2 to 23 of the crime committed in the judgment below) 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the records in the instant case, the Defendant was indicted to the Gwangju District Court on January 6, 2017 for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years from the said court on February 14, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 22, 2017, and therefore, the Defendant’s appeal that did not commit the instant crime during the trial on the said final judgment is reasonable.

However, in light of other circumstances as stated by the court below, the court below's reasoning alone is the same.