The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the motive and background of the instant crime, the process of the instant crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s statement at an investigative agency to a relatively concrete memory in the situation at the time of the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the claim of mental retardation, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was aware of the fact of drinking to a certain extent at the time of the instant crime, but did not lack the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s assertion on unfair sentencing is against the Defendant’s recognition of all the instant crimes, the fact that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, appears to have committed the instant crime by reporting that E, a female living together, was assaulted by the victims, and that the victims agreed with the victims, and the victims wanted to have the Defendant’s wife, and that the Defendant’s health status is not good, etc. are considered in favor of the Defendant.

However, the defendant has a record of being punished several times for the same crime, in particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of probation, even though he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc.) on September 1, 201, and three years of probation, and the victim is multiple victims and the degree of injury and intimidation to victims is not less narrowly, and the defendant was sentenced to the maximum sentence within the range of the punishment mitigated by discretionary mitigation.