A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to shock disorder.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s mistake in the course of committing the instant crime is against the depth of the mistake, and that such shock disorder resulted in the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment (fine 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime committed by the lower court, the circumstances after the crime, etc., which could have been revealed by the record as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it does not seem that the Defendant did not seem to have lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder at the time of the crime in this case, and thus, it does not accept the Defendant

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and in full view of other sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case including the Defendant’s criminal records, the lower court’s punishment is too unlimited and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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