A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have drank alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, in light of the defendant's usual drinking amount, the background and process of the crime, the means and method, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, and even if not, it is not so, the defendant's act constitutes a person who predicted danger and caused mental disorder in drinking, and thus, Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the defendant's act. Thus

B. It is recognized that the amount of damage of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is relatively small, that the defendant confessions a crime and reflects the defendant, and that the defendant is treated as a certificate of alcoholic respect.

However, it is not determined that the sentence of the court below is inappropriate because of the following factors: the defendant has a number of criminal records for the same kind of crime; the crime of this case is committed again during the period of suspension of execution; the damage has not been recovered to the trial; the character and conduct of the defendant; the motive, means and methods of the crime of this case; and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.