A. The Defendant is under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and is in the state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, means, and method of the instant crime, and the conduct before and after the instant crime was committed, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was under the influence of drinking at the time of the instant crime.

Even if so, it does not seem that there was a lack or loss of the ability to discern things or make decisions.

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

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the principle of trial-oriented and directness, and there is an area unique to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole 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 opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, since a new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial of the original instance, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions. The Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.