A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things under the influence of alcohol or make a decision by himself/herself.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to the claim of mental retardation, it can be recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time of the instant crime.

Unlike this premise, even if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, the defendant, despite having been punished several times under the influence of alcohol, is again committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol, while the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the influence of alcohol. Thus, the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger, and caused the state of mental disorder as a person, and thus, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act concerning mental and physical disability cannot be applied.

(Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act). The defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

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). Defendant recognized and reflected a crime.

In the course of investigation, the victims are compensating for damages and the victims have repeatedly agreed to do so.

However, the crime of this case is committed.