A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things and make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months 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 disability, it is found that the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. Determination on the argument of unfair sentencing is a favorable condition for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and against himself, agreed with the victims of the crime of injury and damage to property, and that the defendant paid 2 million won each to the victimized police officers according to the payment order upon request by the victimized police officers. (2) However, the defendant has a history of having been punished several times due to violent crimes, and in particular, even though he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of injury and was under repeated offense, he did not become a person during the period of repeated offense, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being sentenced to punishment. In full view of all the sentencing conditions stated in the argument of this case, including age, character, character, family environment, motive and background of the crime, degree of damage, and circumstances before and after the crime, even if considering the above favorable conditions for the defendant,

C. Therefore, the defendant's above 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 decided as per Disposition.