A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had been in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The Defendant alleged that each of the sentencing sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor was unfair by the lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable, and the Prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s mental and physical argument, the fact that the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the instant case can be acknowledged.

However, in full view of the motive and background of the instant crime, the means and method thereof, and the Defendant’s actions before and after the commission of the crime, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

does not appear.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. As to each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to those of the court below on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the appellate court.

Comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors revealed at the trial of this case, the lower court’s sentence is too heavy or too poor to the extent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion of the court.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments of the chief of the sentencing department of the defendant and the prosecutor.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion are all groundless, and they are dismissed.