The defendant has become in unstable mental conditions once every year, and has become unable to control appraisal, and the defendant has occurred contingently at the time of committing the crime of this case.

The Defendant received hospitalized treatment even after the instant case due to stimulative disorder, and is endeavoring to avoid recommitting a crime by taking medicine after the discharge.

Victim D and G expressed their intention not to punish.

In light of the above, the punishment of the court below (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.