The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the mental and physical weak and unfair sentencing);

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness (such as mental and physical weakness). B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too excessive and unfair (unfair sentencing). 2.

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, etc., revealed by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions with the wall at the time of the instant crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, but only for the reason that the opinion of the appellate court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on account of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing of the first instance court, including the fact that the Defendant has reached the instant case as a wall, are already determined in the lower court’s judgment and sufficiently considered.