The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to each evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the background, means, and method of the crime of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, etc., although it is acknowledged that the defendant had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

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

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court is the instant case.