A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the judgment on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, although the defendant was deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's ordinary drinking amount, the means and method of the crime of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the

did not appear to have existed in or weak condition.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases 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. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain

(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 original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the examination room and the trial room. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.