The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the judgment of the court below (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

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

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

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 sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself to the Defendant immediately after the instant crime and is in depth, the Defendant resulted in the instant crime contingently, and the Defendant was aware of it for a long time with the victim. In the situation where the victim delayed repayment of the Defendant’s obligation, the fact that the Defendant had been able to listen to the creation of the fund, etc., was already determined by the lower court and was fully considered.

On the other hand, the Defendant may be deemed to have caused the Defendant to be subject to the crime of this case by his attitude that was the victim’s seen above.

The argument is asserted.

However, the court below held.