The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

[Defendant requested the continuation of the trial that he/she will arrange the grounds for appeal on April 19, 2019, the first trial date of the appellate trial, and on May 14, 2019, he/she acquired electronic equipment equivalent to KRW 50,824,00 from among the facts charged in the instant case during the trial on May 14, 2019.

A) The Defendant stated that he did not know the victims and did not engage in any transaction. However, the lower court recognized all the facts charged in this case at the lower court. On December 27, 2018, after the lower court was sentenced on December 31, 2018, the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on December 31, 2018, and filed a statement of grounds for appeal that sentencing is unfair on January 30, 2009. The public defender of the appellate court only submitted a written statement claiming unfair sentencing on April 2, 2019, and did not make such a assertion of mistake within the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal. The Defendant’s aforementioned assertion of mistake cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal since it was filed after the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal was expired. Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty guilty of the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized according to the evidence duly adopted and examined, and it does not constitute a separate ground for appeal for appeal.)

2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is new in the trial.