The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence of the judgment as to the claim of mental disability, although the defendant could recognize the drinking at the time of the crime of this case, considering the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time

Since it seems that there was no or weak state, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

The fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime and reflects the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and that the victim does not want the punishment by mutual consent with the victim can be considered as favorable circumstances to the sentencing.

However, considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant had been convicted of several criminal offenses related to violence; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation, and (c) the period of probation has not yet expired; and (c) the Defendant has been sentenced to a minor sentence than the statutory punishment by discretionary mitigation; and (d) the lower court has been sentenced to a minor sentence.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is not reasonable.