1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

3.However, for a period of five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the defendant’s case and the part of the case for which the request to attach an attachment order was filed. Accordingly, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request to attach an attachment order was filed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the application for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and thus, it is limited to the part of the judgment below

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles for reasons of appeal, but all of them were withdrawn on the first trial of the court of first instance.

The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant was in a state that lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case is recognized.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the contents and methods of the crime, the attitude of the Defendant before and after the crime, and the fact that the Defendant stated in an investigative agency relatively detailed memory of the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant is the victim under the pretext of inducing the victim from the same Vietnam by compulsion, and also finding the victim again under the pretext of going through the next day.