A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was deemed to have been in a certain state of drinking alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but the defendant was in a weak state of ability to distinguish things or ability to make a decision.

It is difficult to see that the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, such as the submission of new sentencing data at the trial of the case where the sentencing is unfair. Considering all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health condition, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, frequency and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable and not recognized.

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