The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment (one year of imprisonment) imposed on the accused by the court below 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 range.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial at the trial of the lower court were already revealed in the proceedings of the pleadings by the lower court. There was no change in circumstances favorable to the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing guidelines after the lower judgment was sentenced.

(2) The judgment of the court below is without merit in light of the circumstances agreed with the victims, and the additional sentencing claims in the trial alone do not constitute changes in circumstances to the extent of changing the original judgment’s punishment. In light of the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing in the instant case’s records and arguments, even if considering all the circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment’s punishment is unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.