A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions by taking a large quantity of gal stability and alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

B. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. In light of the records, it is found that the defendant was in a state of taking drugs, such as drinking and psychotropic stability at the time of committing the instant crime, but in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the defendant's attitude before and after committing the instant crime, and the speech and behavior, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing: (a) the defendant made a confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects the depth of the victim; (b) the degree of physical injury suffered by the victim is not severe; and (c) the defendant reported his own criminal act to an investigative agency separately from the victim, etc. favorable to the defendant; or (d) the crime of this case was committed in order to show that the defendant had a knife and had a knife knife with the female living together with the female living together; (b) the sexual female victim who is no superior with the same apartment resident was inflicted with a knife, a dangerous weapon, and the crime was serious; (c) even if the defendant was unable to recover or recover from the damage until the trial; (d) even if the degree of physical injury suffered by the victim is not excessive, it appears that the knife and suffering suffered by the victim of this case are very heavy; and (d) the defendant was subject to criminal punishment including several criminal records punished for the crime of this case before the crime of this case.