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 improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, namely, the fact that the Defendant had dice a little amount of alcohol at the time, but it is difficult to view the Defendant’s behavior at the time of committing the crime as an act of a person with mental and physical weakness, and most of the Defendant did not memory.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant made a statement by partially memorying only the situation that seems favorable to himself/herself, such as the situation that he/she was obvious, etc., the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Sentencing 1) The sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first-class sentencing decision should be respected.