The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the process of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the record as to the assertion of mental and physical disability, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime and the mistake are divided, and the crime of this case is to be considered as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to the violation of the Tourism Promotion Act, etc. of which judgment has become final and conclusive,

B. However, the crime of this case is very heavy for the crime of rape as the defendant threatened the victim of 20 her knife who had been at the close time for post-delivery and could not achieve the robbery purpose by threatening the victim with a deadly weapon.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the defendant was under the same age and sentence, and the victim repeatedly committed a repeated crime during the period of repeated crime, and the victim also wishes to commit a strong punishment, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant, and a severe sentence is inevitable.

C. In light of the Defendant’s age, health status, character and conduct, details and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is adequate and unreasonable as it is within the scope of statutory mitigation (the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act).

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.