A. The Defendant, who was mentally and physically weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each crime in the lower judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant was aware of drinking prior to each of the crimes indicated in the lower judgment, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was in a state in which the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, including the background leading up to the crime; (b) the means and method of the crime; (c) the Defendant’s act before and after the crime; (d) the circumstances after the crime; and

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

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 first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 decided July 23, 2015, etc.). 2) The Defendant is in the first instance trial.