The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the 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 there is no circumstance to newly consider in the trial. As such, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. The applicant filed an application for compensation order of KRW 20 million in the first instance court. However, according to the records, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal proceedings because the scope of liability for compensation is not clear.

3. Conclusion.