A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the crimes of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment below, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of order to complete a child abuse treatment program) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the claim of mental disability, the defendant may be admitted to the fact of drinking at the time of committing each of the crimes in Articles 2 and 3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, but in light of the circumstances of each of the above crimes, the means and methods, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing of the lower court. Moreover, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and the circumstances after the offense, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The main sentence of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act (Law No. 1589) enforced on June 12, 2019, which was exempted from employment restriction orders.