A. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability or mental health disorder.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was found to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime in this case. However, in light of the background, means, methods, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. The Defendant made a confession of charges and reflects on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

The victim is called the defendant's wife by agreement with the victim.

However, around 2015, the Defendant was punished by a fine due to a crime of interference with the business of the victim of the instant crime, and around 2016, the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the same victim due to a special assault, injury, or assault, but the Defendant committed another crime during the period of repeated crime due to the said special assault.

In the case of the defendant, the defendant has the ability to punish for violent crimes.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed as being excessively unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so ordered.