The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (2018 highest 2398, 2018 highest 3206, 2018 highest 3307, 2018 highest 3307, 2018 highest 3341, and 2018 highest 3734, and 1-A of the judgment of the lower court in its holding among the crimes under subparagraph 1-b of Article 1-B of the judgment of the lower court, each of the crimes under subparagraphs 5-1 and 2 of Article 1-B of the judgment of the lower court, and each of the crimes under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the Criminal List No. 7 of the judgment of the lower court, 6 months of imprisonment, 2018 highest 18 highest 1849, 206, 2018 highest 207 highest 201, 200 highest 36 months of imprisonment, and 36 months of each year 7).

2. In light of the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime (No. 2018 high-ranking 3341, hereinafter the same), circumstances after the instant crime, etc., which can be revealed by the record of judgment as to the claim of mental retardation, the Defendant does not seem to have been in a weak state of 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. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and discretion.