A. The Defendant of mental and physical weakness committed the instant alcohol driving crime under the influence of mental and physical weakness due to cerebral blood, etc.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness. The Defendant was diagnosed on July 21, 2017, which was after the instant crime (hereinafter June 8, 2017), as a result of an ex post facto depression, etc., but, in light of the circumstance and method leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior at the time of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. There are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the instant crime and the reflection of the judgment on the unjust assertion of sentencing.

However, even though there are many records of punishment for drinking driving (including two times before and after suspension of execution), the Defendant committed the instant crime while driving again while under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant has a record of being punished by a fine for re-offending during a suspended execution period due to drinking driving.

In light of the above unfavorable circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.