The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, even though the Defendant had symptoms of dementia after undergoing brain surgery and the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time, the Defendant was deemed to have weak ability to discern things or make decisions in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime.

The defendant's criminal records are not visible, but criminal records of the same kind and criminal records of six times.

In light of the above, the defendant dices alcohol.

Even if the defendant committed the crime of this case at least constitutes a free act due to negligence under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is not accepted.

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

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 review, it is reasonable to file a judgment of the first instance court that the sentencing of the first instance is unfair, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance.