A. The Defendant had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant’s drinking at the time of the instant case is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the criminal defendant’s conduct before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the act has led to the weak state of the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Even if the Defendant had a mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime

Even if the Defendant was to drive a vehicle after her being aware of, and brought about the instant crime, it cannot be mitigated due to mental or physical disorder pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant into account, and there is no circumstance to be newly considered in the trial. Therefore, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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.