Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking 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 in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with regard to the sentencing in the appellate court, and the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing in the appellate court had already been determined by the lower court, in light of the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the crime, etc.

There are no changes in the conditions of sentencing in the appellate court.

Since there are no materials to regard the sentencing of the lower court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair.

3. Thus, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.