A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as stimulative disorder, and was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant was suffering from mental illness such as stimulative disorder at the time of committing the instant crime may be acknowledged. However, in light of the following: (a) the process and process of committing the instant crime; (b) the means and method of committing the instant crime; (c) the circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s attitude to state the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

The Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, has the unique area of the first deliberation about the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto in light of the nature of the appellate court’s ex post facto review, the first sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In the event that there are circumstances such as that maintaining the first-class sentencing determination is unfair in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment of the first-class court which was unfair. However, compared to the first-class trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first-class sentencing goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.