A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the physical and mental weakness of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, although the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. In full view of the fact that the criminal defendant committed each of the instant crimes and committed the robbery of this case, the sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the content, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant had attempted to withdraw money by threatening the victim, who is a taxi driver, and the victim, who is a convenience store, with a deadly weapon, with the judgment of the chief of the sentencing department.

In addition, even though the defendant was arrested as an attempted crime of robbery, he threatened police officers in the detention room of the police station, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties.

In light of the circumstances, contents, methods, etc. of such crimes, it is inevitable to severely punish the defendant since the nature of each of the crimes of this case is extremely poor and the damage is not recovered.

On the other hand, the favorable circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing of the lower court, and no new sentencing data was submitted to the extent that the lower court’s sentence was reversed in the first instance court, and there was no change in the other sentencing conditions after the lower court was sentenced.

In addition, in full view of the motive and background of the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, criminal record, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant seems unfair.