A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case, in light of various circumstances such as the background leading up to the crime in this case, the means and method of the crime, and the conduct before and after the crime in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability cannot be accepted.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial court; and (b) the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing appear to have been reflected in the grounds of sentencing; and (c) other various circumstances, including the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions of sentencing specified in the lower court’s sentencing trial process, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.