2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant is deemed to have committed the crime of this case while drinking alcohol, but in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant suffered from drinking alcohol or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit

B. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the defendant's confession of and against the crime of this case, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement, and it is recognized that both the crime of this case and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the crime of injury, etc., which are stated in the judgment of the court below, are in ex post concurrent crimes. This circumstance seems to have already been reflected in the court below. In light of the fact that the defendant had been punished four times in addition to the previous crimes in the judgment of the court below, even though he had been punished by violence, the crime of intimidation with a deadly weapon is not less than one year, and the crime of intimidation with a deadly weapon is a serious criminal whose statutory punishment is limited to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than one year, and the court below made a sentence equivalent to the lower court after again lowering the punishment, taking full account of all the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, circumstances, the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, etc.