A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of mental and physical disability, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the background and method leading to the instant crime, the behavior committed by the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is favorable to the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was committed at the time of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victims; (c) the victims wanted to have the Defendant’s wife; (d) the degree of injury to the Victim G was relatively not much much significant; and (e) the Defendant has no record

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant with excessive theft, and robbery committed by the victim with excessive robbery, and thus, the nature of the crime is very serious. The punishment sentenced by the court below is the lowest sentence that has been mitigated under the statutory punishment applied to this case, and other various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime are considered, it is not recognized that the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3...