A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to mental illness and drinking.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant suffered from mental illness such as drinking alcohol to a certain extent at the time of the instant crime is recognized.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the process of execution, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the commission of the crime, etc., it was deemed that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing mental and physical weakness is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made 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 first-class sentencing determination (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).