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.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant’s determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness is recognized as having a large amount of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a relatively detailed state in light of the following: (a) even though he was aware of the fact that the lower court and the first instance court had lawfully adopted and investigated the evidence; (b) the background and means of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime; (d) the Defendant attempted to attach a plastic house before and after the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant was able to move to a plastic house before and after the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant was unable to properly memory the situation at the time when the crime was committed; but (e) the background and process of the Defendant

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's 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, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, the first instance judgment is reversed solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and the sentence is not different from the first instance judgment.