[57] In the instant appeal, while we accept that the subject matter of the first charge involved a huge amount of over RM1.5 million, the amount is not the sole determining factor for sentencing. It is a principle of sentencing that the mitigating factors must not be disregarded by the trial Court (Mohd Khir Toyo v. PP, [2015] 5 MLJ 429) and that both the interests of the appellants and the public must be considered (see Loo Choon Fatt (supra)). We however find that the learned sessions judge did not at all consider the mitigating factors before passing the sentence. This is apparent from the grounds of judgment where nothing was mentioned about the mitigation of the appellants.

[58] The reasons why the appellants deserve the maximum sentence for the second charge is also conspicuously absent in the grounds of judgment of the learned sessions judge. In our judgment, the maximum sentence should be reserved and is only warranted in a "worst case imaginable" scenario (see Sim Gek Yong v. PP [1995] SGHC 27 and Che Hasan Senawi v. PP, [2009] 1 MLJ 55). There is nothing on record to show why or how this case could be categorised as the "worst case imaginable" scenario.