A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder arising from the main crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, the defendant's movement at the time of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. Although there are no circumstances that can be considered in the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects in depth the defendant's depth, the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner while under the influence of alcohol, the victim is also partly responsible for the victim, and the investigation agency agreed with the victim smoothly with the victim, and the victim does not want to be punished against the defendant, and the defendant is a beneficiary of interest on the disabled in the second degree of disability, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not weak, although long-term criminal records are long, there are several times of past records of punishment, but there are no changes in circumstances that can be considered in the sentencing newly in the trial of the court below, and the court below's other all the sentencing conditions mentioned in the arguments of this case such as the degree of punishment that the victim was a co-defendant, the defendant's age, sexual behavior, and the circumstances after the crime do not seem to be unfair because the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is not accepted.