A. Defendant 1) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The Defendant was in a state of mental disability with weak capacity to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability, in light of the Defendant’s method of crime, the situation before and after the commission of the crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not have reached a weak state of the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We also examine each of the defendant and prosecutor's argument on unfair sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as the grounds for appeal appear to have been sufficiently considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In this context, violence in normal circumstances and at home favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the father B, the father of the defendant, was the victim of a special crime of intimidation to a lineal ascendant, wanting to take the preference against the defendant, and that the defendant does not repeat the crime, is committed against the mistake, and is committed in the nearest family relationship, causing not only destroying and dismantling the family that is the awareness of life, but also causing the "dailyization of tolerance" to the victim. The possibility of criticism and the necessity of punishment is high, and the special crime of intimidation to a lineal ascendant is the character of the anti-humane crime.