The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the defendant's appeal grounds: The defendant's improper sentencing was directed to his living room after his release, and the F decided to commit the crime in accordance with F's proposal, and the F attempted to reduce the defendant's share.

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in the course of worship, the amount of damage was 540 million won, and the amount was 240 million won out of the amount of damage was 540 million won, and that an accomplice I borrowed 44 million won among them was 20 million won and the actual profit was 200 million won and the health was not good and it is against the depth of mistake, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

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

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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the health team and the Defendant as an element for sentencing were already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered, and there is no particular change of circumstances in the matters subject to the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment is rendered.

Other circumstances that the court below rendered on the grounds of sentencing.