The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction in the scope of adjudication by this Court is filed, the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit). Therefore, the part which the court below accepted the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation from the defendant was not finalized and transferred

However, the defendant did not claim any specific grounds for appeal regarding the cited portion of the compensation order of the court below, and there is no reason to revoke or change ex officio the cited portion of the compensation order of the court below. Thus, it should be maintained as it is.

2. The summary of the reasons for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The determination of 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 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 the first instance court’s judgment of sentencing was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing review, and the sentencing guidelines, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance judgment as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered during the appellate court’

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no significant change in circumstances that may take into account the sentencing of the Defendant following the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

The defendant's age, character, character and environment, and motive and background of the crime.