The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. At the time of each crime committed on August 18, 2018, the Defendant was in a state of low decentralization, where three of the workplace vessels and the drinking volume would not be memory. At the time of the crime committed on August 19, 2018, at the time of the crime committed on August 19, 2018, the Defendant was in a state of low decentralization by drinking two of the workplace vessels and one of the sicknesss, and having weak decentralization by drinking while under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mental disorder 1) Each of the crimes committed on August 18, 2018 (the crime of the judgment of the original court 1-A).

In relation to paragraphs (2) and (2), the Defendant stated that the police and the prosecution stated that he was under the influence of Mauritius at the time (Evidence records 153 pages, 225 pages). However, the Defendant stated that the police and the prosecution stated that he was in a very detailed state at the time of each crime, including the developments leading up to each crime, the number of the crimes, response of each victim, in particular, the victim H was in a way to cover with the school sports uniforms, and that he was in a way to cover with the victim. In addition, the Defendant stated that the prosecutor stated that “I want to come only a woman who is under the influence of alcohol” (Evidence records 226 pages), “The Defendant was in a situation where the victim was under the influence of alcohol and CCTV with the place of occurrence and CCTV escape” (Evidence records 153 pages, 225 pages of evidence records), and that it was difficult to view that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by either the victim or the victim’s d image at the time of the crime.

2. dated 19, 2018