The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally deprived due to the increase in the number of impulses, etc. caused by the impulses, etc.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence in the year of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the court below's and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical loss, it is recognized that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact that the defendant had the ability to discern things at the time of the crime in this case.

However, considering the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, etc. at the time of the crime. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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, the first instance court’s judgment that the sentencing of the first instance is unfair is limited to cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance.