A. The Defendant with mental disorder is illegal to recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder, even though the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, although he did not recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the instant crime, but in light of various circumstances, such as the course, process, means and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, it does not appear that the Defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant had been subject to punishment several times, and other various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, such as the motive and method of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age and character and conduct, the lower court’s sentence is deemed unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.