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 judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, including the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant was fully aware of the crime; (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not high; and (c) the victim E, H, and B did not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (d) the circumstance cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal is that the lower court determined the sentencing in its entirety.

In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing to be newly taken into account in the trial.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion