A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disorder having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime while drinking alcohol may be acknowledged, but in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior at the time, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime.

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

B. In determining the punishment against the Defendant, the lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account all kinds of sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, considering the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to damage to the property interfering with the business, and that the degree of the victim’s injury is not less than that of the said suspended sentence.

Examining the above sentencing of the lower court in light of the record, the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no change in circumstances to regard that maintaining the sentencing of the court below is unfair in the trial.

Ultimately, the lower court’s punishment is appropriate, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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