The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case while drinking. However, in light of the circumstances where the defendant committed the crime, the situation before and after the crime, the defendant's attitude and behavior, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things at the time of the crime of this case, or make decisions.

It is difficult to view that there was or was a weak state.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial or the lower court. In full view of the sentencing grounds revealed in the course of the instant pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the term “the pertinent provision of the Act on the 1. Criminal Crime” is clear that the term “the pertinent provision of the Act and the choice of punishment for the 1. Criminal Crime” and “Article 311 of the Criminal Act” are written errors in the context of “the choice of each fine and each fine”.