The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution in October, community service order 360 hours, additional collection 70,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment by taking into account the following: (a) the details of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant escaped for about six years; (c) the balance between D’s days of pre-trial detention and two months or more; and (c) the period of the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime remains two weeks; and (d) there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing at the trial; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable