A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and was in the state of mental and physical disability. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability, even though the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the Defendant’s ordinary drinking volume, the background leading up to committing the instant crime, the means and method of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the time of examination and trial, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the record of the instant case, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too low.

3. Wherefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

(However, the summary of the judgment of the court below is clear that the "victim L" in the 2016 Highest 33th sentence is a clerical error in the "victim H".