The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental disorder due to a de facto disorder caused by a state of obsescing and alcohol ozone, and was in a state of mental disorder.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant committed a contingent crime under the state of unfair sentencing and recognized the crime, the punishment of the original judgment (the fine of KRW 600,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, the record reveals that the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime and was found to have received diagnosis and treatment due to alcohol respect and sulve disorder at a psychiatrist. However, considering the circumstances before and after committing the instant crime, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the defendant’s behavior at the time, etc., it does not appear that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, should respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.