2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against his mistake, appears to have caused contingent crimes while drinking alcohol at the time. While there were one time suspended execution due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act and ten times punished by a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the fact that only one fine has been served as a violent crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case, however, is committed by putting the defendant who was sealed by the victim, thereby causing the death of the victim by pushing the victim again, and causing the death by leaving him in water, and is very serious as a result of the crime. The defendant, after committing the crime, posted a notice to the SNS that he was irrelevant to the death of the victim, is not good in the circumstances after committing the crime. The fact that the victim's bereaved family members want to punish the defendant, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions in the pleadings of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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

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