A. The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions through drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder is unlawful.

B. The Defendant appealed on the ground that the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) declared by himself 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 had a drinking condition at the time of the instant crime, but in light of various circumstances, such as the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. Not only does there are no circumstances to consider the Defendant’s motive for determining unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, but also there is no good quality of the crime, such as exercising violence against the victim’s face, etc. walking along with his accomplices, and the degree of injury inflicted by the victim is very heavy, and the Defendant did not make any particular effort to recover from damage even though the degree of injury inflicted by the victim is very heavy. In addition, considering 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 behavior, the sentence imposed by the lower

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