Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment, ten months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment in case of defendant A, and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

A The sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, intended each of the above punishments against the Defendants. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by Defendant A in the trial and the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor against the Defendants in the trial at the trial of the party. The lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account the factors favorable to the sentencing alleged by Defendant A in the trial of the party and the factors unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor against the Defendants in the trial of the party, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment based thereon exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to see the sentencing conditions, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant A and prosecutor's argument of sentencing is with merit.