A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak due to a mental disorder.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental or physical loss or mental weakness, the fact that the defendant received medical treatment due to a minor editing disorder in 2020 is recognized.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background, motive, means, and the defendant’s behavior before and after the crime of this case revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was in a state that the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.

It is not recognized.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the Defendant recognized and reflected his mistake.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant has not been only one week since it was controlled by other drinking driving cases during the period of repeated crimes due to the crime of dual species, and there is a high possibility to criticize the crime of this case.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, method, and consequence of the crime, as shown in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment appears to be reasonable and is not deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.