beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime in the case No. 2014 high-class 4579, and was in the state of mental disability.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, but in light of the motive of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the horses and actions that the Defendant had committed before and after the crime, it is not deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime.
B. It is favorable to the defendant that the defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes all the crimes and is against the defendant, and that the above victims have not been punished against the defendant under an agreement with the victim'sO or J.
However, the defendant had a record of being subject to juvenile protective disposition several times due to violence, etc., and committed each of the crimes in this case again on December 5, 2012 after having been sentenced to a punishment for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapon, etc.) in 2011 and having been sentenced to a repeated crime on December 5, 2012, each of the crimes in this case was committed again, and each of the victims of the crimes committed relatively serious injuries, and the blood alcohol concentration (0.131%) of the crime of drunk driving (0.1%) was high, although the defendant did not obtain a driver's license, it appears that he had purchased and continuously driven a vehicle in his name without the license from the beginning; the defendant's criminal record relation, the motive, method, and consequence of each crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommendations under the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court (Fag imprisonment, June 8, 2012).