The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) 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 court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, and even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is unfair because the sentence is too large (i.e., taking into account the fact that the Defendant and the victim did not want punishment by mutual consent with the victim, the lower court appears to have determined a sentence against the Defendant by sufficiently considering that the Defendant continuously endeavored for the recovery of damage even after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered. Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing is insufficient to reverse the

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.