Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s mental disorder argument, it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but in light of the circumstances such as the background, means, and circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

It is difficult to see that it has reached a weak or weak state.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against the Defendant and the prosecutor committed the instant crime again even though they had been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, by attaching an electronic tracking device, which again led to the instant crime. The crime was committed in a planned manner, such as wearing a plastic wall with no fingerprints at the time of the instant crime, and the quality of the crime was poor; the victim suffered considerable mental pain due to the instant crime, but no measures have been taken for recovery of damage; however, the instant rape was committed in the attempted crime; however, the injury suffered by the victim was not relatively heavy; the Defendant’s personality and conduct, the background and consequence of the instant crime, and all other sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered to have been divided in depth, and the punishment imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant and the Defendant are not unfairly unfair.