Of the lower judgment and the lower judgment, the part concerning each of the crimes listed in paragraphs 1 and 3 of 2017 Highest 1953 as indicated in the judgment.

1. The sentencing of the lower court’s judgment on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: two years; imprisonment with prison labor for the second time; imprisonment with prison labor for the second time; and imprisonment with prison labor for the second time; imprisonment with prison labor for the second time; imprisonment with prison labor for the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the last six months; and imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second time in the second

2. Of the judgment below of the second instance, the determination of the allegation of unfair sentencing on each crime of the 2017 Highest 1953 cases is based on the statutory penalty, and the determination of the sentencing on the allegation of unfair sentencing on each crime of the 2,017 Highest 2017 Highest 2477 cases is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. The circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial, such as the Defendant, who agreed with the victim H and M, did not want the punishment of the Defendant, etc., are considered sufficiently when determining the sentence in the lower court, and the Defendant is led to confession and reflect against the Defendant during the trial. However, the Defendant has the ability or intent to make the victim C’s son as an artist.