The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The crime of this case was committed in a state of mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) in light of the Defendant’s health status and environment of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, the mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act requires that the mental disorder caused by psychological factors, other than mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, has a lack or decrease in the ability to discern things, and accordingly, the mental disorder cannot be deemed to be a mental disorder, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder, if he/she had the ability to discern things or control action at the time of committing the crime

In light of the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the process and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s statement in the investigation process, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have the normal ability to distinguish things and control behavior at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was imprisoned and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.