A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had been receiving treatment due to symptoms of alcohol respect and re-regrative disorder, and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a child abuse treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the defendant was hospitalized from around 2009 to due to symptoms of alcohol existence, re-complosion disorder, etc. The defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but it is recognized that he had been in a state of drinking, and in light of all the circumstances, such as the process, method and method of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, etc., the defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above illness or drinking at the time

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant did not appear is just, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area of the first instance judgment as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Although it is recognized that the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Meanwhile, the lower court appears to have determined the Defendant’s punishment in consideration of such circumstances, and there