A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical disability due to drinking and the use of an anti-smoking system, at the time of the instant crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the judgment on the defendant's claim of mental retardation, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, and has been prescribed for the drug of anti-smoking.

However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the method and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking, etc. at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this point is without merit.

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it is difficult to view that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by putting too heavy.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor on this point are not justified.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.