The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, the fact that the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case may be acknowledged, but in light of various circumstances, such as the method of crime and the progress of suppressing the victim's resistance, etc., the court below did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, it is a favorable sentencing factor in the following cases: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected by one’s own mistake; (b) the Defendant’s parents want to take the Defendant’s prior action; (c) the Defendant’s parents’ health is not good; and (d) the amount of damage is not so large.

However, on December 9, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a stay of two years and six months in Seoul High Court to imprisonment for rape, injury, etc., and committed the robbery and intrusion upon residence during the period of the stay of execution. The instant crime committed by assaulting a female who was committed with another person’s residence without permission and coercing another person to commit money and valuables after suppressing the resistance, and the nature of the crime is not good. In full view of all other circumstances including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.