The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

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

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In most cases, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of a political party were revealed in the hearing of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances concerning the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

In full view of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and there is no objective evidence that the defendant obtained profit from the crime of this case, and the statement of C, most of the consideration that the defendant received from the crime of this case can be attributed to C, etc., are advantageous circumstances.

However, a crime of distributing access media is a crime that is the means of phishing and illegal Internet gambling, and has a great social harm, and the defendant has been transferred.