A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to mental illness, such as tidal illness or alcohol.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant received respectively from G Hospital located in the Dong-gu in Busan in around 2004, from November 25, 2005 to December 26, 2005, from H Hospital located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and thereafter, from May 18, 2008 to August 8, 2008, from the I Hospital located in Changsi-si, Changsi-si, Masi-si, Changsi-si, Masi-si. The defendant was hospitalized under the name of Cho Jong-si, Masi-si, Mawon-si, with a certain degree of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. However, in light of the process, method and method of the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant was deemed to have no ability to change things or ability to make a decision due to mental illness or alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and had no ability or ability to change things.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the court did not change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below. In full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed in the argument of the instant case, the sentencing of the court below is too too too

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.