The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as 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.

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

There are extenuating circumstances such as the confession of and reflect against the Defendant’s crime, the need to consider equity in the case of the judgment at the same time with the previous conviction, and the fact that there was no record of crime exceeding the fine at the time of the instant crime. However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s damage caused by the instant crime is heavy and the amount of damage has not been repaid at all, the lower court does not need to punish the Defendant.