The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

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.

(See 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 rendered the above sentence to the Defendant in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant had the record of having been punished for fraud due to the use of various types of misappropriations; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even during the repeated period; and (c) the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is a crime which disturbs the security and reliability of electronic financial transactions and is the basis for other serious crimes, such as illegal gambling and voiceing; and (d) the Defendant was already submitted by the lower court to the effect that the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (c) was reflected in the lower court’s sentencing;