A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental or physical weakness or loss.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it may be recognized that the Defendant had a drinking condition at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of the process, content, means and method of the Defendant committed the crime, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the Defendant was in a state where the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the

It does not seem that it does not appear.

In light of the above, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 10(3) of the same Act does not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by a person who causes a mental disorder by such person. This provision includes not only the free act in the cause caused by intention but also the free act in the cause caused by negligence, and even though it was possible to anticipate the occurrence of danger, it is subject to the case where the occurrence of danger was caused by a person’s mental disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). In light of the fact that the defendant was able to have been punished for the same crime committed while he was committed, the defendant could have sufficiently perceived or recognized the risk of repeating the same crime as in this case while he was committed.

In addition, since the defendant himself drinks before the crime was committed and caused the state of mental disorder, it is reasonable to reduce the defendant's ability to assume responsibility due to mental and physical weakness in accordance with Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is justified.