A. The Defendant with mental disorder is illegal to recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, even though he did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case on a contingent basis, the defendant's mistake is divided and will not repeat again, and if the sentence of the court below is finalized as it is, the defendant will lose his workplace and suffer difficulties in living, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below (the suspension of execution in October, 200, the community service order for 80 hours, and the order to attend a compliance driving lecture for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it does not seem that the Defendant had a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, in view of various circumstances, including the process and process of each of the instant crimes, method of crime, the Defendant’s speech before and after the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the instant crimes.

Even if the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, it led to each of the crimes in this case, even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the demand of a police officer for stopping, and thus, it cannot be mitigated due to mental disorder under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Although the community service order may have practical difficulties in the Defendant’s workplace life, the purport of the community service order system, which was found guilty, may substitute for detention in prison.