A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental and physical disorder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental and physical disorder, although the defendant suffered from mental disorder such as sulfur disorder at the time of committing the crime of this case, was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed, etc., which were revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is deemed to have received treatment due to a yellow disorder, etc., but it does not appear that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant sought a warning of dismissal from the victim C who employs himself, around 20:10 on September 6, 2013, and assaulted the victim C and the denied victim D, which continued to assault the victim C even after being arrested as a flagrant offender and served with the H police box, and the Defendant was punished for the same crime, as well as the record of having been sentenced to punishment for the same crime. On March 21, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment due to an injury in the Lanwon District Court’s Eunpyeong site for the same kind of crime, etc. on September 18, 2012, and comprehensively reviewed various circumstances, including the fact that the execution of the sentence was completed and again committed the same kind of crime, despite the fact that the Defendant committed the crime in this case during the period of repeated offense, and thus, the lower court’s conviction appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is also rejected.

3. Accordingly, in conclusion: