A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant was aware that he had drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, considering the background leading up to the Defendant’s crime, method of the crime, the time of the crime, and the following circumstances, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. The following are the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant reflects in depth the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has agreed with the victim; and (c) the Defendant has no criminal record of stay of execution or more; and (d) the instant crime needs to be considered at the same time in the concurrent relationship between the previous offense and the latter after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the Defendant’s crime of this case is an act of inflicting bodily injury at the prices of the injured persons, which are dangerous goods, and the statutory punishment is one to ten years. The lower court, taking into account the favorable circumstances in the Defendant as seen earlier, sentenced to mitigation of the amount of punishment and suspension of execution one year in six months of imprisonment which is the lowest of the statutory punishment, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and taking into account all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is groundless.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is ex officio under Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.