A. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to a crime, the means and method thereof, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was aware that he had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The Defendant recognized his mistake in determining unfair sentencing, against himself, and agreed with the victim.

However, the defendant has a record of being subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and in particular, he has committed a crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

The sentencing of the lower court is the lowest sentence that can be sentenced within the scope of the sentencing after discretionary mitigation.

In full view of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is not unfair.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

(However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "1. Aggravation of repeated crime: Article 35 of the Criminal Act is added to the part of the judgment of the court below for the application of the Act."