The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel on the summary of the grounds for appeal presented on January 20, 2017 alleged that the Defendant’s defense counsel mispercing the fact that the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim K in the summary of the pleadings (the victim K-related denial). However, it is deemed that the Defendant’s defense counsel raised later than the submission period for the reasons for appeal, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak intent or ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol while suffering from alcohol.

(b) the sentence 1 that considers unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant’s defense counsel had the same assertion as the grounds for the instant appeal in the first instance trial, and on the grounds that the first instance court stated the “determination of the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment, and rejected the said assertion in detail.

Examining the aforementioned judgment by comparing it with the record of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment is just and acceptable. In the first instance judgment, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to mental and physical weakness, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged by the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the conditions of sentencing are not changed compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds that the sentence of the