The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant special injury, the Defendant suffered from mental illness, such as bipolar and dynamic disorder, etc., and under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, two million won of fine, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental disability of this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant was under the influence of distinguishing things or making decisions due to mental illness and alcohol at the time of the crime of special injury of this case, even though he was found to have been under the influence of drinking alcohol at that time, in light of the background, means and methods of the crime of this case, the defendant's attitude and words at the time of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to view that the defendant was under the influence of distinguishing things or making decisions due to such mental illness and alcohol at the time of the crime of

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

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 the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected the mistake, and agreed with some victims, but the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol of this case.