The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (the suspended sentence of a fine of one million won, the suspended sentence of a fine of one million won, the suspended sentence of a fine of one million won, and the suspended sentence of a fine of 500,000 won: each of the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW

2. Determination

A. The phrase "when the circumstances before the opening of the suspension of sentence" refers to the case where even if the sentence is not imposed in light of the degree of reflectability and comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, even if the sentence is not imposed, it means the case where the defendant again commits a crime. The phrase "when the circumstances before the opening of the sentence is obvious" is limited to the case where the defendant actually divided a crime in depth, or it does not mean that the suspension of sentence cannot be made whenever the defendant denies a crime without confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 200). Meanwhile, the judgment of discretion takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the two factors constituting the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty.

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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first-class sentencing determination (Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).