A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (five million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed, etc. as revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is deemed that the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, but it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

B. Although the Defendant agreed with the victims to determine the allegation of unfair sentencing, and appears to be contrary to the fact that the Defendant appears to have been subject to criminal punishment more than 20 times, the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., and other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., are considered to have been repeated during the period of repeated offense, and thus, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.