A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental disorder caused by drinking, but the lower court neglected this.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one-five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's drinking prior to the crime of this case is acknowledged.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant made a concrete statement by the police at the time of the instant crime (the Defendant, at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency, made a false or concealed statement despite his/her failure to memory of the contents of the instant crime; however, the Defendant’s statement corresponds to the contents and details of the instant crime recognized by other evidence and corresponding parts to the details of the instant crime, which are recognized by other evidence), and there is no evidence that the Defendant, other than the Defendant’s statement, was in a state immediately preceding the instant crime, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

On the other hand, the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder can be voluntarily mitigated. As such, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment solely on the ground that the lower court did not have any legal mitigation due to mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing: (a) the murder crime infringes on a human life-irreplaceable value; and (b) is a serious crime for which damage can not be recovered in any way; and (c) the Defendant and the victim followed the strict liability corresponding thereto.