The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant, at the time of the crime of special robbery in this case, had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

In light of the agreement with the victim of the special robbery claiming unfair sentencing, the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months 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 special robbery; however, in light of the fact that the defendant made a relatively detailed statement on the circumstances leading to committing the crime, etc., and the victim's statement (Evidence No. 15, 117 of the Evidence No. 2014 high-priced103 of the Criminal Procedure Act) as to the defendant's status at the time of committing the instant crime, it does not appear that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

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

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2012) (the crime of special robbery of the same kind during the grace period), and the Defendant committed another crime of special robbery of the same kind during the said grace period, not only can it be punished due to drinking driving, but also the Defendant did not have much time after receiving criminal punishment due to drinking driving, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s act of drinking driving of the this case is a factor of sentencing, which imposes criminal liability on the Defendant.

On the other hand, the amount of damage caused by the crime of special robbery of this case is minor, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant under an agreement with the defendant, and the defendant is recognized as all of the crimes of this case and his mistake is divided in depth.