A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the claim of mental retardation, it is not recognized that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in full view of the method and method of the crime of this case, the circumstance of the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant was investigated by the police since five hours have not elapsed since the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant stated in detail the detailed actions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of various sentencing conditions as indicated in the argument of this case, including the circumstances mentioned by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the court below’s decision 2 to 3 pages) in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing, the court below’s sentence is too unreasonable and it is not acknowledged that the defendant’s allegation in this part is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.