However, as to the conviction portion of the court below, the defendant appealed only on the ground of unfair sentencing, while the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal portion of the public prosecution, and the scope of this court's trial is limited to the conviction portion of the court below.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, so as to have weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, confiscation No. 1) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records of the judgment on the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime in this case, in light of various circumstances, such as the process, method and method of the crime in this case, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime in this case, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant

In full view of the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victims, the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of violent crime including the Defendant’s punishment, the fact that the Defendant was an offense during the suspension of execution is disadvantageous to the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant was an offense during the suspension of execution period is the lowest sentence of punishment under the discretionary mitigation Act, and the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as a whole, the lower court’s punishment is not recognized to be too unreasonable.