A. The Defendant committed each of the instant frauds in a state of mental and physical weakness due to proof of alcohol content, etc.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is found to have received hospitalization from September 13, 2016 to May 21, 2017 due to the symptoms, etc. after having been diagnosed as the climatic dependence, etc. for alcohol dependence. However, in light of the circumstance and method leading up to each of the instant fraud, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after committing each of the instant crimes, etc., the Defendant was found to have lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant's acknowledgement of each of the crimes of this case as to the improper argument of sentencing is against the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had had the record of having been sentenced to imprisonment several times with prison labor due to the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the same kind, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of the crime of the crime of the crime of the same kind again due to the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the injury

The victims of each of the crimes of this case did not receive correspondence from the victims.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

The defendant's argument that sentencing is unfair.