The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the mental and physical weak and unfair sentencing);

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime (the mental and physical weakness). The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) was too excessive and unfair (the sentencing is unfair). 2.

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., revealed by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the trial court, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the ability to discern things or make

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant alleged in the appellate court, such as the confession of the Defendant and the fact that the Defendant reflects a criminal act, are already set forth in the judgment of the lower court.