The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who did not have awareness of misunderstanding of facts, was injected with a philopon, and at the time the Defendant was unaware of the Defendant’s injection of a philopon, and no prior consent was given thereto.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak by taking the therapy, such as depression, while under the influence of alcohol, at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the lower court, had E injection of phiphones into the Defendant’s left arms and administered phiphones can be fully recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical loss or mental weakness, although the Defendant was deemed to have drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the background, means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances, etc., the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to engage in the right and wrong, or make decisions, due to drinking at the time.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical loss or mental weakness is not justified.

4. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment on the grounds that new data on sentencing have not been submitted at the trial of the original judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, the sentence of the lower court is within the scope of the discretion of sentencing assigned to the lower court, and it is unfair because the said sentence is too unreasonable.