The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness, under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

The punishment of the court below (4 months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., recognized by the court below as having lawfully adopted and investigated the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but was in a state that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to such fact.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing is decided within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that are conditions for the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

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 instance sentencing determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said sentence, and the Defendant was in the heart.