The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

At the time of the filing of the claim for judgment on mental disorder, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability.

Judgment

According to the records, even though the Defendant was aware that he had drinking at the time of committing a crime, in light of various circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, such as the background, means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Meanwhile, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may be mitigated from punishment."

Therefore, even if the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, the punishment can be voluntarily mitigated. Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment solely on the ground that the lower court did not have any legal mitigation due to mental disorder against the Defendant.

Therefore, this argument is without merit.

The imprisonment (seven years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

In particular, it is unreasonable for the court below to determine the punishment without considering it in the instant case, even though it constitutes “where the injured party is reasonably responsible for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage,” which is a special sentencing factor set forth in the sentencing guidelines.

Judgment

The defendant shows an attitude that the investigative agency recognizes the crime and repents the mistake, and the court of original trial and the court of the trial by making efforts to change the damage, thereby depositing part of the compensation for the bereaved family for the damage, paying the amount of the compensation for the crime victim paid to the National Treasury, and somewhat taking into account the motive and background of the crime.