All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) While under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant is unable to punish the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, or the punishment should be mitigated. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending this provision. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant A’s mental and physical disorder, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime is acknowledged, but considering the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, including the Defendant’s presentation of any defect and removal even if the Defendant took the Defendant’s gold scrap against the victim prior to the instant crime, the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime cannot be deemed to have been lost or weak. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendants are not deemed to have recognized mental and physical disorder as to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, they are acknowledged as favorable sentencing factors, such as the fact that they led to the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, the fact that they mislead and reflect their mistakes, the victim recovered the damaged goods and did not want to punish the Defendants, and Defendant B voluntarily reported 112 as robbery (However, it is not self-denunciation because the police officer dispatched denied all the suspected facts to the police officer dispatched).

However, Defendant A has been punished for committing a criminal act 27 times in total, including 6 times of sentence and 2 times of suspended sentence, and in particular, on November 13, 1996, the Busan High Court stated that “the victim under the influence of alcohol” was 170,000 won in cash from the victim under the influence of alcohol.