The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which did not recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant, due to drinking, went to commit a crime under the influence of physical and mental weakness, while having a weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, although the Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol to the extent of Class A in the instant case at the time of committing the instant crime, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the Defendant did not appear to have reached a state where the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① According to the result of the appraisal commission with respect to the Medical Care and Custody Center, the Defendant’s statement of opinion is that “The Defendant is presumed to have been presumed to have Maitius’s judgment power, impulse control power, and the ability to discern things, but it is difficult to determine that the Defendant had failed to discern things or make decisions.”

② The Defendant, immediately after committing the instant crime, expressed a relatively accurate statement to the police officer who was called up for the instant crime, to the effect that he was imprisoned, and that he was imprisoned.

③ A witness of the Defendant in the instant building, which was a fire site at the time of committing the crime, stated to the effect that “The force to resist and resist the Defendant was significantly strong, and the horses were not subdivided, making it difficult to see that the Defendant was under drinking.”

B. Determination on the unfair argument of sentencing is made.