The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability or mental health disorder due to depression, etc.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the Defendant had been treated due to depression, WIG disorder, etc. before the instant crime was committed is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the method and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability or mental health disorder due to depression at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this point is without merit.

B. The judgment of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined as indicated in its reasoning, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s history of criminal punishment, including the same criminal records, is several times; and (b) the victim’s degree of injury does not seem to show any trace of efforts made by the Defendant to recover from damage.