A. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, resulting in falling short of the intent or ability to discern things.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (7 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the defendant was in a drinking condition at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of the content of the statement by the Defendant and the victim, the process and method of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions has reached a weak state.

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

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the fact that the Defendant recognized his criminal act and reflected his criminal act, the degree of damage, and some of the damage amount was recovered from the victim, etc.

However, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant by threatening the victim E with a deadly weapon, using the credit card which received by force as one of his own, and theft of another's property.

The defendant was unable to take measures to recover damage or to receive a letter from the victims.

The defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime for which the defendant was born and released from prison due to robbery, and was sentenced to imprisonment several times due to special larceny, special robbery, etc.

In full view of these circumstances and other factors, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and consequence of a crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court and the sentencing guidelines established by the sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant is above the Defendant.