A. In the early 20th century, the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was under brain surgery due to a traffic accident, and the recognition ability was lowered, and his ability was lowered. The judgment of the court below that did not consider the physical and mental weakness of drinking at the time of the instant crime is unlawful (the Defendant appealed from sentencing on the first trial date of the first trial of the court below).

However, the reasoning of the appeal submitted by the Defendant stated the above arguments and did not explicitly withdraw the above arguments at the trial date of the court of the first instance. (B) The sentence of the court below which was unfair for sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed with the overall characteristics of the war that had been accompanied by the fertility, and with the symptoms of cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Bribery, and the fact that he had drinking at the time of committing the instant crime is acknowledged, but, in light of various circumstances, such as the background, means and method of the instant crime, the details of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state that he lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions,

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Furthermore, even if not, the Defendant considered that there was a history of punishment five times due to driving of drinking and refusing to measure drinking, the Defendant, even though he predicted or could have predicted the risk of driving under the influence of drinking, caused the physical and mental weakness of the Defendant.

Since it appears, pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, the above conditions cannot be asserted as grounds for mitigation of liability.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is favorable to the Defendant.