The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the content and means of the crime, the degree of damage, the damage has not been recovered, and the Defendant committed a second offense without being aware of the period of a repeated crime committed by the same kind of crime, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment. While some victims (L) have submitted a written application for punishment at the trial, they are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing of the lower court as the content of the agreement submitted by the lower court, which is the same as that of the agreement submitted by the lower court, and there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing at the trial, the lower court determined the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship