The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, on August 9, 2016, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime of intrusion on his/her residence, and thus, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following facts and circumstances can be known, and in addition, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s behavior mode at the time of committing the instant crime, the specific details of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after committing the instant crime, the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental and physical weakness cannot be accepted.

(1) On August 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) immediately after committing the crime of intrusion upon his/her residence, entered the victim’s male-gu room by putting him/her to the studio complex (studio complex).

The police, upon receipt of the report 112, entered the studio complex (studio complex) to give out tobacco.

The defense was vindicateed.

② The Defendant was arrested as a current criminal and under the police investigation, and did not peep his windows.

The length of smoking and smoking tobacco was the way to enter the studio complex on the way to drink alcoholic beverages.

However, some of the 40th and second half males did not ask why they were dint of their windows, and they reported to the police and sent it to the police station.

“A relatively clear statement on the situation at the time of discovery to the effect that the situation was “,” and the purport to the effect that it is not memory under the influence of alcohol.

There is no circumstance to view.

(3) In the course of conducting an investigation by the prosecution, the prosecutor’s question that “Is no memory of drinking alcohol” is called “Is no memory.”

A. E.C. I.T.T.

In response, “The relationship with alcohol was denied by itself.”

B. The defendant's position is to determine the unfair argument of sentencing.