The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability with mental or physical disability, where the Defendant lacks the ability to divide the death.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was aware of all the facts of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s mistake is against his depth, and the surrounding persons, such as the son of the church accompanying the Defendant, wanting to take the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of the court below, the circumstances after the crime, etc., which can be revealed by the records of the judgment as to the claim of mental disability, although the defendant appears to have taken a little amount of alcohol at the time of each crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant had a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly, the defendant's claim of mental disability is rejected.

B. It is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, since there exist the unique areas of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In addition, the Defendant’s criminal power, the social risk of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, which the lower court rendered, are also very poor, and there is no special change in circumstances that the lower court should change the punishment after the sentence was sentenced, and all kinds of sentencing recorded in