A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to drinking.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to the assertion of mental disorder, although the defendant was found to have driven alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that "the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to the act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder." According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be acknowledged that the defendant had driven alcohol at the time of the vehicle even though he had the record of punishment for the accident during drinking alcohol, so the defendant constitutes a case where the defendant is able to drive alcohol after drinking alcohol and the risk of the accident may occur, despite predicting the possibility that the accident may occur.

I would like to say.

Therefore, in the instant case, Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act cannot be applied to the reduction of punishment in the case of mental disorder. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven a vehicle without mandatory insurance and was subject to the instant accident. Moreover, the Defendant was sentenced to suspended execution on December 11, 2008 due to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Dangerous Driving Death and Injury) and the Defendant’s birth against the Defendant and her mother who shall support the Defendant, appears to have already been considered in the lower court’s judgment.