All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three months, and the second instance court: the fine of five million won) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The argument of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 was joined in the judgment of the court below, but the court of first instance and the court of second instance are sentenced to imprisonment, respectively, and the judgment of the court of second instance. If each of the judgment of the court below is different from imprisonment and fine, even if the argument of the court of appeal is combined in the appellate court, the appellate court can maintain each of the punishment sentenced by the court of appeal, and it does not necessarily require a sentence of the same kind. Thus, the judgment of the court below

A. Determination of the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of statutory penalty is based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty

The Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, has the unique area of the first deliberation about the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto in light of the nature of the appellate court’s ex post facto review, the first sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In a case where there are circumstances such as where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is, in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment of the first instance court which was unfair. However, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).