All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, or was in the state of mental and physical disability and mental disability. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the motive and background of the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc. at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court on sentencing of the Defendant.