2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have a drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but there was no ability or decision-making ability of the defendant to discern things due to drinking, in light of the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. In full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant cannot be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit, on the ground that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. However, there are many records that the Defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime during the period of suspension of execution, and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even during the period of suspension of execution, and that the lower court appears to have determined the punishment by reflecting the aforementioned favorable circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.