The crime of this case is a crime committed by the defendant in a state of mental disability due to alcohol dependence and depression.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unlimited and unfair.

Judgment

According to the record of the determination on the claim of mental disability, although the defendant was diagnosed of alcohol dependence and depression and received treatment for around 2016, it is recognized that the defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol dependence and depression at the time of the crime of this case. However, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the defendant, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the method of crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that

(3) The judgment of the court below is justified in a case where: (a) the defendant alleged mental or physical disability in the court below, and the court below did not clearly state the decision on this issue; (b) the defendant did not recognize that there was a state of mental or physical disability at the time of each of the crimes in this case; and (c) the court below did not have any error that affected the conclusion of the judgment, even if the court below did not state this part of the judgment, it does not have any change in the conditions of sentencing compared

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant.