The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (two years and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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.

The fact that the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect the crime is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant was punished several times for theft and violent crimes in the past, and did not know even though he had been sentenced to punishment, and did not go to the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime for the same species.

In addition, the defendant did not comply with the request of an investigative agency for appearance in the course of the investigation of the defendant's injury to the elderly and the elderly without any particular reason.