A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was physically and mentally under the influence of drinking with mental and physical weakness.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes, the means and methods, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental and physical disorder at the time.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, it appears that the lower court’s agreement with the victim of a special damage was reflected in the sentencing, and that there was no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment until the first instance court reaches the trial, and that the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.