The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant may be admitted to drink at the time of committing the instant crime, but in light of the fact that the defendant has made a relatively detailed statement about the situation at the time of committing the instant crime (Evidence No. 109 of the Evidence Records), it does not seem that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant acknowledges the instant crime and thereby contravenes his mistake, and does not focus on the degree of injury inflicted on the victim, as well as on the grounds that the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the Defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the crime of robbery was committed by the Defendant in the aftermath of the victim, thereby inflicting bodily injury upon the victim; (b) the victim’s head was the main cell phone; and (c) the crime was committed in light of the background and method of the crime, etc.; and (d) other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; and (c) the circumstances after the crime were committed, the scope of the applicable sentences of robbery (the statutory punishment of robbery is the lowest sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than 7 years, and 3 years and 6 months, whichever is less than the applicable sentence) was determined; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor near the lower limit within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.