beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant with mental disorder committed each of the crimes of this case under the condition of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the details, means, methods, and results of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the defendant was deemed to have drinking at the time of the crime, but was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol, even though he was aware of the fact
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect the instant crime. The instant crime is in a concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Assaults, etc.) for which the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the case should be considered at the same time in accordance with the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, but the lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendant in consideration of the aforementioned circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the sentence, which is equivalent to the State’s legitimate exercise of public authority.