The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as 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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as favorable factors in sentencing in the trial at the trial at the court of the lower court were revealed in the hearing, and it is difficult to find any changes in circumstances related to the matters that are conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower court is made.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime and expressed his will to recover damage, and that there are no past records or criminal records of the same kind which have been punished more than the punishment, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant did not pay the amount of damage for more than three years and it was in the first instance, it did not reach an agreement with the victim, and the victim led the defendant to be dismissed as the manager of another company, and prepares and uses false documents to commit the crime of this case.