The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of mental and physical weakness.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a prison term of three years and six months, and confiscation) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s background leading up to the instant crime and his behavior before and after the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the record as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was not able to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place 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, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing claimed by the Defendant in the trial are already considered by the lower court, and the first instance judgment was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

No. 3.