The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the defendant's appeal : The punishment imposed by the court below (a fine of 1 year, a fine of 15 million won, an additional collection of 12 million won) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the defendant had difficulty in making economic efforts due to the care expenses, care expenses, etc. of the children who were born with intellectual disorder; (b) the amount of 3 billion won for non-tax revenue in the MM in the year 2016 was increased; and (c) the public official has been fully making best efforts during the period; and (d) the crime was committed in the course of the trial.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, most of the circumstances alleged by the health team and the Defendant as an element of sentencing were already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There is no particular change of circumstances in the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was made.

As in this case, the bribe donor A.