A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a mental and physical state with alcohol proof.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was treating alcohol at the time of the instant crime with alcohol and the existence of alcohol from November 1, 2001, but, in light of the background and method of the crime, the conduct before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

It is not recognized.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. The Defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the instant crime against the illegal argument of sentencing.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who was under suspension of execution for the same kind of crime, and it is not good that the crime is committed.

The Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the injured party.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).