A. The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions through drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder is unlawful.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had a drinking condition at the time of the instant crime, but in light of various circumstances, such as the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. Considering the various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, such as the scope of the statutory penalty for the instant crime, the scope of the recommended punishment under the sentencing guidelines, the motive and method of the instant crime, and the content of damage, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentence, which sentenced the suspension of the execution of imprisonment to the Defendant, is unreasonable after mitigation of the statutory penalty, is unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.