A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of various circumstances such as the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, and the conduct before and after the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability cannot be accepted.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking account of all the circumstances surrounding sentencing, including the fact that the Defendant was under trial on a separate basis, the Defendant committed the instant case even though he was under trial; the Defendant did not receive a written indictment from the victim; the Defendant was committed; the Defendant’s awareness of committing a crime; and the Defendant did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime prior to the occurrence of the instant case; and there is no other circumstance to be newly considered in the trial. In full view of all other circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessive, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.