A. Although the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court erred by failing to mitigate mental and physical disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental retardation, it is not recognized that the defendant was in a state of mental retardation even though he was aware of drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing [The reasonable circumstances] Defendant’s factual basis for the instant crime itself is recognized and is against the principle of good faith.

[Unjustifiable circumstances] The nature of each of the crimes of this case is not good.

There are many criminal offenses against the accused.

In full view of all circumstances, including the above favorable circumstances, the Defendant’s age, intelligence environment, relationship with the victim, motive means of crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable and not recognized.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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