The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant: The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of 4 years, confiscation and collection of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) The Defendant, who was closely imported, changed the amount in consideration of the sentencing by taking account of the fact that the Defendant received a large amount of penphones in comparison with the amount that he sent in return for the Defendant, and the Defendant himself remitted part of the amount that he remitted to overseas sellers for the import of penphones, was a monthly money.

One of the arguments is that there is no new argument between the investigative agency and the original trial.

There is no explanation as to the reason for the change of the assertion, even though one asserts that he/she predicted on the imported philophones, unlike the original trial (the second page of the argument dated 4,5, and September 11, 2017), there is no explanation as to the reason for the change of the assertion (the first page of the evidence record 101, 155, the first page of the trial record, the second page of the statement of the grounds for appeal filed on June 14, 2017).