A. The Defendant, at the time, went to commit a crime under the influence of alcohol, while having the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not accept legal mitigation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background and process of the crime committed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s conduct before and after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not grant legal mitigation under Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act against the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law as alleged in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

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

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.