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

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, community service, 200 hours of education, 40 hours of education) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the claim of mental disability, the defendant is deemed to have had a little drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but it does not seem that the defendant had a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was found to have committed the instant crime, even though he/she was sentenced to two times a sentence due to the same kind of crime, one time a suspended sentence, and six times a fine, even though he/she was under the influence of alcohol, even though he/she was found to have committed the instant crime, the instant crime was committed by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s refusal of goods dangerous to the victim; and (b) the nature of the instant crime was serious; and (c) other various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, are considered to have been too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.