The Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of detention.

At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records of this case, the fact that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case is recognized.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is not accepted.

If 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 is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

In full view of the factors revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too large and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit.