The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed each of the instant crimes under the mental and physical weakness caused by brain death diagnosed from around 2013.

B. In light of the various circumstances of this case, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the court below acknowledged that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in a state of mental and physical weakness caused by brain death, and determined the punishment of each of the crimes of this case against the defendant, and determined the statutory mitigation for the mental and physical weakness, and therefore, the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel in this part is

B. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, if the sentencing of the first instance does not change in the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. The first instance court’s judgment is reversed solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court’s judgment and the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing since new materials were submitted to the Defendant within the scope of the sentencing sentencing guidelines compared with the lower court’s sentencing, and the sentencing of the Defendant’s age, character and environment, punishment history, motive and consequence of crimes, and all the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.