Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was suffering from after having undergone cerebral surgery due to a collective assault in around 1996. Moreover, at the time of the crime of this case, he was under the influence of alcohol by assaulting the victim’s body of head under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was under the influence of her ability to discern things or make decisions due to her temporary memory at the time of the crime of this case. 2) The lower court’s punishment (a 3 years and 6 months imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's mental disorder claim, it is recognized that the defendant was hospitalized in the brain mathro, brain rupture, and sbrake, etc., and had undergone surgery such as mathal mathal and mathal mathal mathal, and mathal mathal mathal, etc. at around February 1997. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant would suffer from temporary memory when he was faced with shock on his mathal part due to the above injury. Even if the defendant was found to fall into the temporary memory, there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant's ability to recognize or judge the defendant was weak or lost due to the temporary memory.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant's return to the defendant after drinking alcohol and went to his room to change the duty, and again found the victim to change the duty, and the defendant committed the crime of this case on the 57 pages, 58 pages, 173 pages, 174 pages, and 174 of the investigation records.