The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the court below (two months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

The defendant's petition of appeal did not state the grounds for appeal, and only claimed unfair sentencing in the statement of appeal.

On the first trial date of the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that “the Defendant received the benefits and did not receive the proceeds of the crime from accomplices.” Even if the amount received by the Defendant is considered as the proceeds of the crime, the Defendant merely received the amount of KRW 30 million, and argued that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of additional collection by the lower

However, it is difficult to regard the foregoing additional argument as a legitimate ground for appeal as a new argument that was made after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.

However, we examine the above arguments ex officio.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the circumstances appropriately stated by the court below (the third additional collection part of the judgment of the court below) by comparing them with the records, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of mistake of fact or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the judgment

The sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and it is a discretionary judgment that takes place within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors on the 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 appellate court ex post facto in view of the inherent nature of sentencing of the first instance court, it is deemed that the sentencing of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing criteria, etc. of the first instance court, or that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is in full view of the newly discovered materials during the appellate court’s sentencing hearing process.