The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the judgment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

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 sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, took full account of the following: (a) the Defendant was able to commit the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was able to have committed the instant crime; (c) the Defendant was able to have committed the instant crime; (d) the Defendant voluntarily discharged part of the amount of damage; (d) the Defendant was deemed to have been able to have worked for the victim; and (e) the Defendant’s birth is currently for the victim;

In addition, there is no special change in the sentencing conditions in the trial.

Therefore, the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

If so, the court below's sentencing should be respected.