A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state that he or she lacks the ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol or make decisions on his or her own.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental and physical disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the determination of the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized the instant crime.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime.

Until the trial, victims did not recover their damage.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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.