A. The Defendant suffered from stimulative disorder at the time of the instant crime, and was under the influence of alcohol so that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions by himself/herself.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to the assertion of mental disability, the defendant suffered from a stimulative disorder, etc., and can be recognized that he was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time of the instant crime.

Unlike this premise, even if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, the defendant is again committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol despite the fact that he had been punished several times due to the crime of fraud, the crime of interference with business, even though he had the record of punishment several times under the influence of alcohol, and again has the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the influence of alcohol. As such, the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger, caused the state of mental disorder as a person, and thus, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act on the

(Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act). The defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

The crime of this case is committed.