A. At the time of each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) had physical and mental weakness, such as alcohol ozone, sulvel, and sulphy; and (b) had considerable quantity of alcohol to discern things or make decisions; (c) was in a state of mental and physical loss or weak mental or physical weakness.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the argument of mental and physical weakness, the defendant is deemed to have a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit, in full view of various circumstances such as the background and details of the crime of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the result of mental appraisal against the defendant.

B. The fact relevance of each of the instant crimes is recognized and reflected by the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant partly repaid and agreed on the damage to the victim E is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed each of the instant offenses during the period of a repeated offense; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense; and (c) other circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, even though considering that the Defendant constitutes a chill intellectual obstacle, the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too large and it cannot be deemed unfair, the defendant's person.