A. The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol on a vehicle that was unable to communicate due to a difficult hearing.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

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 sentencing of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial of a party appear to have already been determined by the lower court and sufficiently taken account of the circumstances favorable to the sentencing, and the lower court’s judgment on the basis thereof is reasonable within the scope of discretion.