The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant suffers from mental disorders of Grade II, and the Defendant committed a crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, and the damaged goods appear to have no economic value different from that of the person who was killed in the name of the deceased, and thus, is unfair.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower court, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

The Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime, and repented his mistake, and has disabilities of Grade II with mental disorders.

There is a favorable circumstance in which the damage has not been expanded because the defendant's fire prevention of this case has not been burned in addition to the ozone layer that the defendant stolen.

On the other hand, the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

Although the defendant has a mental disorder of class 2 with mental disorder, such a disability is a critical cause for the crime of this case.