A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, was unable to discern things or make decisions.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though the defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, taking into account various circumstances, such as the circumstances surrounding each of the crimes of this case, time of the crime, duration of obstruction of business, etc.

There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

This part of the argument is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant acknowledges the instant crime with regard to the determination of the illegality of sentencing, each of the instant crimes is likely to interfere with the business activities of convenience stores, assault the victim working at convenience stores, and the nature of the crime is bad, the Defendant has many records of punishment due to violence, and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's improper assertion of sentencing also has no reason.

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