The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

The sentencing of the lower court (three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness was made by the Defendant prior to the instant crime, with the degree of 10 Macju 2 and 10 Macju at the time of committing the crime.

On September 25, 2017, according to the response to the request for a pre-examination to the defendant by the branch of the Daejeon District Observation Station, which was submitted to the court below on September 25, 2017, the defendant seems to be a person with a problem of 24 points in total as a result of the pre-examination (AUDIT-K) of the pre-examination (AUDIT-K) of alcohol use disorder on a daily day without any day.

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to intrusion by specifying the residence of the victims during the course of the instant crime, the behavior of the robbery crime, and the attitude of the defendant at the time of emergency arrest, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of blocking each of the instant crimes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following factors: (a) the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

assessment; or