The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of 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 sentencing of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, etc.

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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning for sentencing, imposed the above sentence on the Defendant. The lower court appears to have shown that the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the instant crime, the Defendant appears to have led to the confession of and reflect against all the crimes from the investigative agency to the trial, or there was a complaint against the behavior of ordinary victims, etc., and the circumstance that the Defendant is an aged person, etc. is determined by the lower court’s sentencing.

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