A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was imprisoned with a usual anti-competence, but committed the instant crime under the condition that he had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the dysium symptoms during the instant crime, due to the dysnishing of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, the lower court also asserted the same, but in full view of the background and process of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s attitude to make a statement in an investigative agency, etc., the lower court committed the instant crime under the circumstance that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was lacking the ability or

The defendant's assertion was rejected on the ground that it does not appear.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and the defendant's mental and physical weakness is without merit.

B. As to each of the unlawful arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the determination of discretion is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under 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.

There are circumstances such as evaluating or maintaining the first-class sentencing determination in full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.