A. The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, has committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have been in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant has a number of penalties due to violent crimes, including the punishment imposed as a sentence, committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, committed the instant crime, committed a serious apology to the victimized public official, or failed to recover from damage, and there is no special circumstance to change the sentencing after the judgment of the court below. In light of all the sentencing conditions stated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to be appropriate and unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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