The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All applications for compensation filed by each applicant for compensation are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is based on the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors on the sentencing under 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and there is no circumstance to newly consider in the trial. As such, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. C, an applicant for compensation, filed a claim for compensation order of KRW 30,000 and delay damages therefrom, and F, an applicant for compensation, filed a claim for compensation order of KRW 6,500,000 and delay damages therefrom. However, according to the records, each of the above applications for compensation is not specified.