A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to a breathy or mental disorder due to a traffic accident after the instant crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution, protection observation, and community service order of 80 hours in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

In addition, the defendant's disability is a 6th degree disability in the upper sense, and it is not related to the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, there are no special circumstances to change the punishment in the first instance court, such as both the defendant and the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case, and the fact that both the victims and the victims have agreed to the punishment.

On the other hand, considering the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he had been punished several times due to the same crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is determined within the reasonable and appropriate scope, and it is not judged unfair because the above assertion by the defendant is also rejected.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.