The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which provides for the conditions for sentencing, is interpreted to be subject to the discretion of the court concerning the determination of punishment widely, the court of final appeal erred by misapprehending the facts on the basis of sentencing in the fact-finding court, unless it adjudicates on the grounds of final appeal as to the propriety of the determination of punishment in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years is pronounced pursuant to Article

The argument that the court did not properly examine the circumstances under which the sentencing conditions are attached cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

However, in light of the principle of balance of punishment and the principle of accountability that the discretion of the court of fact-finding with regard to the sentencing should be a proper balance between the crime and the punishment, there is an inherent limitation that is recognized within the scope of sentencing determination within the punishment of the crime as stated in the facts charged by the defendant in question in light of the principle of balance of punishment

In a case where, on the basis of the crime prosecuted against the defendant, the fact-finding court has committed the same substance as an additional punishment that has not been prosecuted against the defendant by taking the amount of punishment into account as the core sentencing condition, which was not proven by evidence having probative value to the extent that it does not exclude a reasonable doubt, as the motive or result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and thus, constitutes a violation of the essential contents of the principle of balance of crimes beyond the illegality of a simple sentencing determination, and thus, is unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1816, May 29, 2008). Examining the record in light of such legal principles, the lower court determined that the sentencing of the first instance court is appropriate.