A. The Defendant, a mentally and physically weak, committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in a state where the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, even though he was aware that he had drinking at the time of each of the crimes of this case, considering the circumstances, process of each of the crimes of this case, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after each of the crimes of this case.

It does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. In the instant case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions that would be specifically considered in the appellate court’s judgment regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, in full view of the various circumstances indicated in the column of “reason for sentencing”, including the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, health conditions, family relationship, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, it is difficult to deem the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of the sentencing discretion, and is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.