All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant with mental and physical disorder was at the time of committing each of the crimes in the case No. 2017 Highest 1380; (b) the Defendant was in a state of loss of mental and physical disorder or mental weakness due to decentralization

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years in total) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below (unfair sentencing) is too unfortunate and unfair.

Judgment

In full view of the contents, process, means, and method of each of the crimes in the instant case, which were established by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder, and the circumstances after the crime were committed, the Defendant was in a state that, at the time of the crime, the Defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the main commission, labor-management disturbance, and yellow disorder.

Since the defendant's mental disorder is not recognized, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

Defendant

On the basis of statutory penalty, the sentencing of the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first-class sentencing determination (Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).