A. In light of the circumstances such as the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol prior to the instant crime, was punished several times, and was diagnosed on around February 2016, such as alcohol-based symptoms, military register barriers, etc., and was hospitalized and hospitalized until the end of June 2016, which was immediately before the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not reduce mental and physical weakness is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical weakness, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as this part of the judgment below is alleged.

The lower court acknowledged the circumstances as alleged by the Defendant, but, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, found that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

The court held that the defendant cannot be seen, and rejected the defendant's argument.

In addition to the circumstances appropriately determined by the court below, the court below’s aforementioned determination is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for appeal.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, this paper raises an objection.