The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the crime.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant, from February 2, 2014, could be acknowledged that he was receiving medical treatment due to the symptoms of Cho Jae-in. However, in light of the background leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it is determined that the defendant did not have reached the crime of this case due to the network or exchange, or was in a state where he did not completely control his will at the time of the crime. Thus, the defendant was in a state that he lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime.

Therefore, the above argument is rejected.

B. Improper sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on statutory penalty, within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first-class sentencing decision should be respected.