A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too uncomparably unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence of determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant was receiving medical treatment by being diagnosed as the climatic brain dead at the time of the instant crime is recognized.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant was in a state where the ability to discern things or make decisions was weak at the time of the crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

3. Determination of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of statutory penalty is based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

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 judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court erred by misapprehending the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant.