The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the course and process of the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, it is not deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant himself/herself appears to reflect the mistake while committing the crime itself; (b) the robbery itself was attempted; and (c) the degree of injury suffered by the victim G was not relatively more severe; (d) the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim E and G; and (e) the Defendant did not have the same criminal power.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by damaging the corrective device at night and impairing another’s residence, thereby inflicting bodily injury on the victim G in order to escape arrest. In light of the background and method of the crime, etc., the crime was committed very serious. The statutory penalty of the crime of robbery in this case is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than seven years. The lower court, which selected a limited term of imprisonment, sentenced three years and six months to the maximum punishment (three years and six years to fifteen years) under the law, and took full account of various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime.