A. At the time of stopping the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude and words before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, which are acknowledged based on the evidence recorded by mental and physical disorder, the Defendant is recognized as somewhat drinking at the time of the instant crime, but did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

It does not seem to have reached a state of or weakness.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime on an contingent basis. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime.

However, the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and there is no special change in circumstances to determine the punishment differently from the original judgment when it comes to the trial.

In addition, in full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health status, criminal records, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit