The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one month of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in No. 1 of the judgment below and the crimes listed in No. 1 of the annexed crimes table No. 6 of the annexed crimes among the crimes listed in the judgment below and the crimes listed in No. 2 of the judgment below) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on 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 sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the determination of sentencing of the first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Of the crimes No. 2 in the judgment of the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 130,00 to the victim DB non-life insurance company (former unit fire insurance) in the No. 6 of the attached crime list No. 130,00 won among the crimes No. 2 in the judgment, and the fact that it was agreed to pay KRW 550,00 to the victims of the crime No. 2 in the table No. 2 in the judgment of the attached crime No. 2 in the crime No. 2 in the judgment, but it is recognized that the above damage was less than 10% of the total amount of damage, and the fact that the above damage was repaid is a condition for the sentencing.