The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant with mental disorder was addicted to the carbon gas from middle school, and was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. According to the record of trial as to the assertion of mental disorder, the following circumstances are revealed.

After the instant traffic accident, the Defendant: (a) landed the victim from the vehicle, and drive the victim into a construction site with a distance of 10km; and (b) abandoned the victim.

After that, the defendant is driving as the main place operated by his living together, and dices alcohol at the place where he gets a woman-friendly day of his living.

The Defendant initially denied the crime that there was no traffic accident from the police officer who confirmed CCTV, etc. at the time when he was asked about whether or not the traffic accident was caused by telephone, and then subsequently respondeded to the police officer who confirmed CCTV, etc. at the time.

The Defendant made a statement from an investigative agency in detail by memorying the circumstances before and after the instant crime.

According to the result of the mental evaluation of the defendant performed in the trial, it was determined that the defendant was in a relatively normal criminal state that he did not have any mental disorder enough to diagnose a unique mental disorder, and that there was no obstacle to the change of things and decision making at the time of the case.

In light of these circumstances and various circumstances revealed in the record of trial, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the aftermath gas poisoning at the time of committing the instant crime.

The Defendant’s assertion that the lower court erred and adversely affected the judgment, despite the fact that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing.