Defendant

E All appeals against the Defendants by both E and prosecutor are dismissed.

The judgment of the court below shall be 19, 4, 4.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant E: The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: Penalty against the Defendants of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (long-term 2 years of imprisonment, short-term 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, completion of sexual assault treatment programs, 40 hours of imprisonment, 1 year and 6 months of probation, 3 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, 30,00 won of probation, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 300,00 won of probation, 80 hours of community service, 30 hours of probation, 10 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 30,000 won of probation, 30,000 won of probation, 80 hours of community service, 5,00,000 won of fine for Defendant E, and 2,500,000 won of fine for Defendant F) are too uneased.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and reasonable 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 first-class sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court’s judgment determined the sentence against the Defendants by taking into account the following factors of sentencing, etc.

(1) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years, short of one year and six months, and sexual assault treatment programs.