2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the defendant often drinks a large amount of alcohol, and can be recognized that the defendant has a considerable amount of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. However, in light of various circumstances such as the process of the crime of this case, etc., the defendant makes a statement by systematically memorying the process of the crime of this case, and the background, means, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it seems that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, this part of

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that most victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, that most of them appear as a living crime, and that the defendant led to confession and reflects in depth on the part of the defendant.

However, considering the above circumstances, the crime of this case constitutes a crime under Article 5-4(5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and its statutory punishment is imprisonment for life or for not less than three years.

In this case where there are no other legal grounds for mitigation, even if a limited term of punishment is mitigated, the maximum sentence of the punishment for the above crime falls under one year and six months, and since the defendant cannot be sentenced to suspended sentence because he committed the above crime during the period of repeated crime, it is not legally permitted to sentence a more minor punishment or sentence a suspended sentence.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit without further review.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is groundless.