A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcoholic proof and excessive drinking.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant received hospitalized treatment due to the existence of spirits after each of the crimes in this case, and the fact of drinking several alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s attitude before and after the commission of each of the instant crimes, etc., it is not determined that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the existence of spirits or excessive drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. There are circumstances, such as the fact that the degree of injury suffered by the victim on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not limited, and that the defendant bears the burden of proof of alcoholic beverages, etc., and that the defendant does not bring about a mental and physical state, but such proof appears to have partially caused the instant crime.

However, even before committing the instant crime, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes against the Defendant’s father-friendly job victim without having been aware of the history of punishment several times by using violence against his parents or neighbors, or without having been endeavoring to improve drinking habits, even before committing the instant crime, and the Defendant submitted a written agreement with this court as normal data.

However, the victim is attached to the above agreement.