A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness who was drunk or unable to make a sexual judgment.

Although the Defendant did not specify the specific contents of mental and physical disorder, in light of the purport of the statement of the reasons for appeal, the Defendant’s statement of the statement of reasons for appeal, and the reflective statement submitted by the first instance court (section 41 of the trial record), the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “The Defendant became unable to make a normal and rational judgment on the part of the victims due to an appraisal, such as drinking alcohol and a sense of worship on a change in mind, making it impossible for them to make a normal and rational judgment on the part of the victims.”

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the Defendant sent a text message that threatens the victim D and the phone call at the time of the instant case to the mobile phone by finding it a house, and the Defendant talked with an investigative agency about detailed memory of the background of the instant case, the horses and actions of the Defendant and victims, and the details of the Defendant’s assault, etc., and was investigated by the investigation agency. In the process of the investigation, the Defendant stated that he was drank at a small amount of illness.

In light of the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s speech, memory of the Defendant’s criminal process, and the amount of drinking alcohol, etc. at the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant was in a state of having lost or weak capacity to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.

It is not recognized.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.