The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair imprisonment) is too unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (the mistake of facts, and the unreasonable sentencing) 1 was merely a relationship in which the Defendant was unilaterally instructed by the Defendant A, and was not a partnership relationship. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment on the premise that the Defendant conspireded to commit an offense on an equal footing with A, and thus, is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and did not find any circumstances to be newly considered in the trial.

Although the defendant is recognized as having reached an agreement with most victims, the crime of this case is very serious.