A. The Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the crime.

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, namely, the fact that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time, may be recognized. However, the Defendant’s records of the crime in this case, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, and the records of the crime committed by the Defendant in drinking conditions at 18 times.

In light of the above, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is not accepted, since at least it appears that it constitutes a free act due to negligence as stipulated in Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Code.

B. Improper sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on statutory penalty, within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The injured person is the victim.