The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In the event of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination of the mental or physical disability or the argument of mental or physical disability of the Defendant, even though the Defendant was aware of little alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the ability or decision-making ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s usual drinking amount, the amount of the drinking alcohol immediately before and after the instant crime; (b) the time and place of the instant crime; (c) the background and consequence of the instant crime; (d)

The defendant's assertion is not accepted because it is difficult to view it as being or weak.

B. The first sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing is, based on the statutory penalty, discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, by taking into account the factors on the sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first instance court's sentencing should be respected.