The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant was under a long-term mental treatment due to depression before the instant crime, etc., and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by drinking and drinking alcohol from the time when the instant crime was committed.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) on the assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant had been suffering from mental therapy due to depression before committing the instant crime, etc., and it appears that the defendant had drank alcohol even before committing the instant crime.

However, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s conduct at the time, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of loss or lack of ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime due to the aforementioned circumstances, etc., and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The judgment of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing refers to cases where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, they should be respected.