A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, means, methods, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc. at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, even though the defendant recognized all the crimes of this case, the defendant did not agree with the victims even up to the trial of the case, and the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of this case is very high to 0.238%, and the victims do not seem to be minor, in full view of all the sentencing factors of this case, including the defendant's age, character, environment, criminal records, circumstances and motive leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.