A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was deemed to have served alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, but was in a state that the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the Defendant’s average amount of drinking, the motive and circumstances of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s behavior before and after each of the instant crimes.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness is rejected.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the conditions of sentencing are not changed compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court’s judgment on the grounds that new materials were not submitted in the first instance court’s trial and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and in full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable

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.