The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (an imprisonment of four years, additional collection, and order of provisional payment) 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.

In the absence of 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 circumstances cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, such as: (a) the Defendant was fully recognized and against the facts charged; (b) the Defendant has contributed to the growth of the victimized company while serving for a long time in the victimized company; and (c) the victimized company does not want the Defendant’s punishment.

On the other hand, the defendant sought a letter from the related persons of the delivery company in which the defendant requested money and valuables, and some of the delivery companies related persons want to have the defendant's preference.

However, the defendant abuse his position and authority in the victimized company.