The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to alcohol dependence and alcohol dependence at the time of the instant crime, and it was difficult for the Defendant to anticipate that he would proceed to such crime in a state of obsession. Therefore, the lower court’s failure to reduce the level of mental disability against the Defendant is unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that “Although it may be deemed that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to alcohol dependence or regularly under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, even if such a state was in such a state, it is not appropriate to reduce it on the ground of mental disability” on the grounds that the Defendant made a claim similar to the grounds for appeal in this part.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the records and relevant legal principles of this case, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant, the court below is justified in rejecting the defendant's claim for mitigation of mental or physical disability on the grounds as stated in its holding, and it does not seem that

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the argument on unfair sentencing where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the Defendant as an element of sentencing in this court are already revealed to be circumstances that were already revealed during the hearing process of the lower court, or that the lower court sufficiently considered in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines and the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.