A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant appears to have drinking alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and that the Defendant had symptoms of alcohol alcohol.

However, the following circumstances are: (a) at the time of the first crime, the Defendant appears to have reported to the police the situation at the time of the crime (Evidence No. 13, 14 of the evidence record); (b) the Defendant appears to have been aware of the situation at the time; (c) each of the instant crimes was repeatedly committed during this period; (d) the Defendant repeated the process of arrest and release as a current offender; (c) it appears to have been sufficiently notified of the fact that he had been aware of the fact during the police investigation conducted by the relevant director; and (c) even if the Defendant was unable to memory as alleged by the Defendant, such fact alone was in a state of mental and physical loss at the time of the crime.

In full view of the fact that it cannot be readily determined (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do361, May 28, 1985), the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of committing the instant crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and some of the victims punished by the Defendant.