A. Since the Defendant has committed the instant crime under the mental and physical loss or mental weakness, his responsibility should be dismissed or his punishment should be mitigated.

B. In light of the fact that the illegal defendant in sentencing is in a profound radius, that the victim and the victim immediately after the occurrence of the case have agreed to do so, and that the defendant has not committed any crime again and is living in good faith in the future, the punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is not determined that the Defendant had the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to the circumstance leading to the instant crime, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing.

The defendant has been punished for a total time as violent crime, and the defendant also committed the crime of this case without being aware of during the period of probation due to the crime of injury.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, criminal history, and circumstances after the crime, including favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too unlimited and it is not determined that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the various circumstances asserted on the grounds of appeal.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.