The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The mental and physical disorder was at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant was in a state where he had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime, or was in a state of being disqualified

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

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

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and thereby, is new in the trial.