A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of committing the instant crime, there was an error of misapprehension of the legal principle in rejecting the Defendant’s mental and physical disability, since the shock disorder and drinking caused by the use of depression or medication was added, and there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since the defendant was diagnosed with Maululty in around 1998, the fact that the defendant took Maultyty Treatment after being diagnosed with Maultyty Medical Treatment until now, currently shows a certain degree of alcohol dependence, and was somewhat certain at the time of the crime of this case is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing did not have significant damage due to the instant crime, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, which is the lower limit of the punishment, by taking account of the favorable circumstances in favor of the Defendant, such as the agreement with the victim D. Since the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is lower than the statutory penalty, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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 decided as per Disposition.