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

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The above argument is rejected, since the defendant is found to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but it is not recognized that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the instant crime and divided, and it is recognized that the Defendant agreed with the victim at the time of the trial, but, in particular, the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime on August 9, 2012 by imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. and imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, a suspended sentence of 2 years on August 17, 2012, which became final and conclusive in this court on August 9, 2012, and committed the instant crime even during the suspended sentence, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to each of the instant crimes, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the circumstances before and after the instant crime, even if the Defendant’

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.