A. The Defendant committed the instant crime under the mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by it, and, in light of such facts, found that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of committing the instant crime.

It is difficult to view it.

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, has taken care of the sentencing of the Defendant.