A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental or physical loss or mental weakness, it is recognized that the defendant had a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant was under the suspect examination at the police on March 4, 2017, and the defendant was under the suspect examination at the police station on March 4, 2017.

As long as the police officers were called, they were called up.

In light of the fact that the Defendant is memorying to some degree of the situation at the time of the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state that he had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

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

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the first instance court.

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with dangerous articles, and thus, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to intimidation of the victim, but the victim was found during the repeated crime period, and the victim was threatened again for the purpose of retaliation against the above punishment.