2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s defense counsel sought to exercise ex officio on the ground that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder caused by drinking and drinking, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a state of drinking to a certain extent at the time of the instant crime. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant did not sell the Defendant’s drinking at the D subject point at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, leading the Defendant to the Defendant’s head and her corridor, leading the victim F’s head, leading the victim’s her corridor, her victim’s her head, and her head bbbbbbbbbbbbbs, etc. before and after the instant crime. In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s defense counsel’s ability to change matters due to drinking or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disability is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and commits the instant crime, and that the degree of injury of the victim F was not severe, but the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment and fines several times for the same kind of crime, the victims did not recover from damage, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury) is bound to be punished for not less than one year and six months even if the statutory punishment is more than three years or more, even if discretionary mitigation was made, the lower court sentenced to the lowest punishment during the applicable sentence after taking account of the favorable circumstances of the Defendant, and sentenced to the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, situation before and after the crime, etc.