A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to proof of alcohol.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the developments leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, the situation at the time of arrest, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol proof at the time of the instant crime.

Since it does not seem that there was or was a weak state, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The Defendant had a record of criminal punishment several times due to the same kind of crime, the probation period for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime without being subject to a fine even though he/she was sentenced to a fine on several occasions during the suspended execution period. In full view of the fact that the damage recovery from the instant crime was not made at all, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.