A. In the event of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination of mental or physical disability or mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have drinking prior to the crime of this case, in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior, etc. before and after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant did not have the ability or decision-making ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Therefore, it does not accept the allegation of mental disability or mental disability.

B. It is recognized that the defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the defendant's consent to the crime, and the victims do not want the defendant's punishment by mutual consent with the victims.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant committed a second crime without being aware of the fact that he committed a repeated crime due to a crime of special injury, and the fact that there is a high risk in light of the method of the crime and the part of the injury, and other circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, family relationship, environment, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable or unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.