A. Defendant 1) Although the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court neglected this. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the Defendant did not so, the lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment) declared by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment)’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the defendant's claim of mental disability, although the defendant could be found to have been drinking at the time of the crime in this case, at the time of the police and prosecutor's investigation, the defendant was aware of the fact that he was drinking at the time of the crime in this case. Meanwhile, at the time of the police and prosecutor's investigation, the defendant expressed that "the defendant received a phone from the victim while drinking at home," the victim expressed her desire to be "hyp" to "hyp" to the victim, so the defendant continued to feel "hyp" to the victim, and the victim her talked as "hyp" to the victim, and therefore the defendant was unable to attend the crime in this case because the victim was not called several times, and the victim did not have the ability to respond to the crime in this case, and the defendant did not have the ability to defend the victim immediately after the crime in this case, and there was no change in the defendant's intent or ability to act before and after the crime in this case, the defendant's behavior in this case and circumstances after the crime in this case.

B. Determination of unreasonable sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant on the instant crime is all the crime.