All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first judgment of the lower court: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year, and the second judgment of the lower court: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(2) The lower court’s judgment of the first instance court on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). However, the lower court sentenced the Defendant each of the above punishments in consideration of the following factors: (a) although the Defendant’s mistake was committed against himself; (b) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and form of the instant crime; (c) the police officer was injured; (d) the degree of injury was not easy; and (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense after having been sentenced to a punishment for violent crime; and (e) the sentence is inevitable; (d) the lower court sentenced the Defendant to each of the above punishments in consideration of the developments leading up to, and the number of goods obtained by, the Defendant; (e)