The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was in a state of insufficient or weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking three illness, breathing three illness, and drinking.

Nevertheless, the court below did not decide whether there is a ground to dismiss the defendant's liability, and the court below erred in the incomplete hearing.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion of incomplete hearing is acknowledged to have stated at the police that he was in a state of Magri third illness at the time of committing the instant crime, but the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime in light of the circumstances and methods leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime.

in such a manner as to be deemed to have been in a weak state.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary decision is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the conditions for 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.

Such exceptional circumstances.