A. Defendant: Mental and physical disorder, unreasonable sentencing. B.

Prosecutor: 2. Judgment of this Court

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the Defendant’s mental and physical argument, the fact that the Defendant had been in a state immediately after drinking the alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes is acknowledged. However, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion disputing this point cannot be accepted.

B. As to each of the arguments on unfair sentencing, although the defendant has been punished several times for a similar type of crime, and there has been no agreement with the victims during the period of the suspension of execution, the defendant has committed each of the crimes in this case. However, considering the following circumstances, considering the degree of interference with each of the crimes in this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, circumstances after the crime, risk of recidivism, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence of six months sentenced by the first instance court is too heavy or unreasonable, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor disputing this issue cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, we cannot accept all appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.