A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a condition that he was unable to discern things or make decisions due to editing mental fissiona, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the Defendant was suffering from the ordinary mental disorder of the Defendant under the influence of alcohol, along with the fact that 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, as recognized by the lower court.

However, in light of the circumstances such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be seen that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision at the time of the crime, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant’s recognition of all of his criminal acts and reflects in depth the mistake; (b) the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime in a state of mental disorder by contingency; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim; and (d) the Defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is a dangerous act that may cause secondary traffic accidents by assaulting the taxi articles in operation of the defendant, thereby causing bodily injury and destroying the taxi glass.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to this point, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive for crime, circumstances after crime, etc. are discussed in this case.