Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing [the Sentencing 2017 Highest 223, 2017 Highest 11 (Joint 11) (hereinafter “the first lower judgment”) is unreasonable as the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the 2nd judgment”) are sentenced to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years, 2017 Highest 898 (hereinafter “the 2nd judgment”) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the first instance judgment of the Prosecutor (unfair sentencing) (limited to 4 years of imprisonment) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

2. The facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment against the defendant are the concurrent crimes of the previous conviction and the second instance judgment after Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The facts constituting the crime of the second instance judgment after the final judgment in the original judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, it is obvious that each of the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment is not the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is not a case where a sentence should be imposed for each crime, and it is not a case where each of the original judgments

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

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 sentencing of 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). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, is the Defendant.