All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the substance of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court.

However, when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first deliberation sentencing process and the sentencing guidelines, the first deliberation sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

In a case where the appellate court recognizes that maintaining the sentencing of the first instance court is unfair in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment of the first instance court which was unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the defendant had a single disposition of suspending indictment for the same kind of crime, he/she again committed the same crime and has the record of receiving a summary order of a fine of KRW 600,000,000 as he/she again committed the same crime, and the defendant continued to commit multiple identical crimes.