A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mental or physical loss or mental weakness, it is acknowledged that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but in light of all circumstances such as the background and content of the crime of this case, the defendant's behavior and attitude before and after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant did not have the ability or ability to make a decision on the matter under the influence of alcohol at the time of this case, and thus, the defendant's allegation in this part

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case against the mistake, that the defendant received hospital treatment with alcohol dependence, and that such symptoms appear to have contributed to the crime of this case.

However, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victims without the intention or ability of the defendant to repay, and by deceiving them with the alcohol and sacrine equivalent to KRW 1.2 million, in light of the frequency of the crime and the content of the crime, etc., the liability for the crime of this case is heavy, the defendant committed the crime of this case when he was punished for the same kind of crime, and he committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, the defendant did not make any effort to recover the victims' damage, and the Korean Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of the punishment, and there is no change in the conditions of the sentencing, and the rational scope of the first