A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking at the time of committing the instant crime with interference with and injury to the Defendant.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant was deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of interference with the business of this case and injury, in light of the defendant's reputation, the background leading to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant was in the state of having no ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, or of lacking ability to do so.

Since it is not recognized, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant shows an attitude against his or her wrong recognition of his or her fault, and that the victim C and F do not want the punishment of the defendant.

However, there is a history that the defendant has been punished more than 10 times by imprisonment with prison labor for a crime related to violence, such as robbery, suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor, fine, etc., and there is a history that the defendant has been punished as a crime of robbery, robbery, violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol), the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case during the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years due to the crime of injury, obstruction of duties, etc., and the execution of the sentence has been completed, and there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below was sentenced, and there is no other reason to change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below was sentenced, and even if examining the various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in this case such as age

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is reasonable and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.