A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, method, and method of the instant crime committed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and the conduct before and after the instant crime, it does not appear that the Defendant had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant as above.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, even if the sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, etc., are comprehensively taken into account, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.