A. Even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not reduce the level of mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s improper order to restrict employment to the Defendant for three years at child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for disabled persons is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the Defendant spashed a large amount of alcoholic beverages exceeding the usual drinking volume on the day of the instant case, and argued that put put in place to put in place orders and put in place orders only before the instant pen, and that the situation at the time of the instant case does not completely memory.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant parked the vehicle after shutting back at a considerable distance between the office where the defendant was driving the vehicle before and after the crime was committed and the penta parking lot where the crime of this case occurred. According to CCTV images taken this, it is confirmed that the defendant had driven and parked the vehicle in a very stable manner, and the evidence records are 80-83 pages, 20-83 pages, and 70,80,81 pages, 81 pages, and 30-81 pages of the evidence records, considering the fact that the defendant's getting off from the taxi and entered the house with the victim's care, it does not seem to be like the person who has inconvenience in acting due to drunk drinking, even if the defendant returned the vehicle to the penta when the defendant returned the vehicle to the penta.