A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which did not recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant, due to drinking, went to commit a crime under the influence of physical and mental weakness, while having a weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the defendant's drinking together with the victim at the time of the crime of this case can be acknowledged. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, it is not deemed that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

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

A police officer E, who was dispatched to the scene of a crime, stated that “The defendant was somewhat protruding, but he was in a state that he could walk, and responded to personal information.”

After committing the crime, the police officer F who investigated the Defendant at the police station stated that “The Defendant did not correctly answer the horses asked by the Defendant, and did not seem to have met.”

The Defendant, upon receiving an investigation from the police station immediately after the crime, made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant gets her knife his knife while drinking with the victim and her knife his knife his knife his knife with the victim, and then his knife his knife will no more than

The defendant has reached three times in the knife of the victim's right chest, and the victim immediately concealeds the victim from the house and has reached three times in the knife.

The substance of these crimes.