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 and physical disability due to a stimulative disorder (so-called depression).

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a state where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the evidence of both polar disorder at the time of committing each of the crimes of this case, in light of the circumstances, means, and methods of each of the crimes of this case, which can be known by the records of the records of this case, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.