The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

The crime of this case was committed in the state of mental disorder or mental disability.

The above-mentioned sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Although the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of each crime in the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in light of the background leading up to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime.

It does not seem that there was or was a weak state.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

The sentencing of each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, which takes into account the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Defendant is at the trial.