A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, means, and method of the instant crime committed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and the conduct before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have committed the instant crime, even though he was aware that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and thereby, does not seem to have lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s fact of the instant crime itself is dead and wrong, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor, and the victim is not subject to the Defendant’s punishment. However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was recognized as having favorable circumstances in the investigative agency and court of the lower court, and the lower court attempted to claim and transfer liability for the false facts that the Defendant was assaulted first by the victim; (b) the Defendant was in light of the method and circumstance of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances where the instant crime was committed; (d) the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of execution for the same violent crime around 2015; and (e) the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of execution for the same violent crime; and (e) was sentenced to a fine for property damage around 2017; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime; and (e) various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.