The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental and physical loss or mental weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the mental appraisal document for the preparation of a medical care center’s appraisal of mental and physical disorder, the defendant depends on alcohol, but it was proved that the defendant’s ability and decision-making ability at the time of each of the crimes of this case were sound at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the means and mode of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol change or lacks the ability to make a decision.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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, it is desirable to respect the first-class sentencing determination (Supreme Court Decision 2017 July 23, 2015).