The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment regarding sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it appears that the first instance court’s judgment is reasonable to have determined that the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the victims do not want to purchase and administer phonephones, and considering such special circumstances already determined by the lower court.

B. Along with the fact that the Defendant has already been punished several times as a drug crime or was subject to treatment, care, and custody, and that the Defendant again committed the instant instant penphone purchase and medication during the period of suspension of execution despite having been placed on several occasions with respect to each of the above narcotics crimes, the amount of damage caused by the embezzlement is the maximum amount, and the frequency and scale of gambling, etc., the responsibility for the crime of habitual gambling is very significant, and there is a history of being punished as habitual gambling in the past, and other records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.