The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically in a state of mental distress due to mental distress, etc. with the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant committed the crime of this case under the circumstance that the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions, or lacks the ability to make decisions.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made 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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial of a party appear to have already been determined by the lower court while sufficiently considering the circumstances favorable to the sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment, based thereon, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

see.