A. Although the crime of this case was committed in the state of mental and physical weakness or loss due to the Defendant’s de facto disorder, depression, and main escape, the judgment below which did not recognize it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical disorder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental or physical disorder, the court below's judgment and the court below's oral statement of the defendant, the defendant was found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but was in a state that the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to the state of alcohol or public disorder, depression,

Since the defendant's mental and physical disability cannot be seen, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first-class sentencing determination (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).