A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things and make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten 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 and physical disorder, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol 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, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized as follows: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the victims agreed voluntarily with the victims; (c) the Defendant’s wife did not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the Defendant’s wife wanted to take the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; (b) however, it is not good that the Defendant committed a crime in that the Defendant was under criminal punishment on several occasions (4 times of actual punishment, 3 times of suspended execution, 15 times of fine); (c) there was a record of criminal punishment (4 times of actual punishment, 3 times of suspended execution; 15 times of fine); (d) most of them were the criminal records; (e) the Defendant’s violent tendency was not improved; and (e) other various sentencing conditions presented in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime; and (e) circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., considering the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s punishment that is favorable to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.