The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (non-incompetent of mental disability and unreasonable sentencing)

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

(b) mental health;

The sentencing of the lower court (two years of probation, probation, and community service order for 80 hours in six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., known by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion 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 conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the principle of trial-oriented and directness, and there is an area unique to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing.

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning for sentencing, declared the above sentence against the Defendant. The Defendant led to the confession of the crime and the reflectiveness of the Defendant, and the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendant.