The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and six months and confiscation) of the lower court’s sentencing (e.g., imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination 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, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the
In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its holding. The circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial, such as: (a) the Defendant was first offender with no criminal records; (b) and (c) the victims, other than one person whose identity is not verified, have agreed to punish the Defendant; (d) the Defendant has already been sentenced to punishment in the trial; and (e) the Defendant has led to a confession of and against the crime in the trial; (e) however, the Defendant took part in the crime; (b) the degree of his/her participation cannot be deemed minor, such as taking part in the criminal act of a financial institution; (c) the Defendant received the amount of damage from the victim; and (d) the amount of damage was committed against a large number of victims; and (e) the amount exceeded KRW 129 million.