Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable in sentencing (the sentencing of 10 years of imprisonment and 5 years of imprisonment, the order to attach an electronic tracking device for 6 years and matters to be observed).

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

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 sentencing of the first instance court 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 criteria, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, etc.

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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning of sentencing, sentenced the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”) to the above punishment. Of the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal, the Defendant confessions all of the instant crimes among the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal, and reflects them; there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and the Defendant’s health status is not good.

In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing to be newly taken into account in the trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, the judgment of the court below should be respected.