A. The instant crime claiming mental disorder was committed under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, and was committed in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant under investigation by the prosecutor, and stated to the effect that the degree of the defendant's disease exceeds the level of No. 4 of No. Mauritius's disease at the time of the crime of this case, exceeding the level of No. 2 of No.

However, it is unclear whether the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and even if he was under the influence of alcohol, there was no ability to discern things or make decisions due to the change of things, even if he was under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant did not have the ability to change things or make decisions. In light of the fact that there was no other statement to the effect that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

It does not seem that there was or was a weak state.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s divided the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for the crime of robbery, and committed the crime of this case at least three months since the execution of the sentence was completed, and the crime of this case was committed by the defendant. The crime of this case is that the chest of the victim, who was diving by the defendant, is limited to the victim's clothes, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the victim is the severe punishment of the defendant.