The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant G shall be reversed.

Defendant

G shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of Defendant C (the 6-A, No. 7, and No. 9-B as indicated in the judgment of the court below) of the court below (the 4-A, No. 9-A as indicated in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable as the sentencing of Defendant C is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of Defendant G (10 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is based on the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under 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 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 as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances on the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial are already considered by the lower court, which has already been determined by the sentence and sufficiently taken into account.

It is deemed that there has been a new change in circumstances that essentially different from the assessment on the degree of responsibility of the defendant solely on the grounds of internal concern.

shall not be deemed to exist.

According to this, the court below's decision against the defendant.