A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, a mentally and physically weak, was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Reviewing the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the record reveals that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but, in light of the Defendant’s ordinary drinking volume, the background leading up to the commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weakness are without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing of sentencing on the grounds of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed in comparison with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the lower court did not change the conditions for sentencing compared with the lower court’s new materials, and comprehensively considering the reasons revealed in the instant sentencing process.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.