A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability with large amounts of de facto control and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination:

A. According to each evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, it is recognized that the defendant has recovered from the truth in relation to the confeat and patitis at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, and the amount of the defendant's reputation, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant did not have reached a state where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is the factor of sentencing favorable to the Defendant that recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant in the judgment of the lower court.

However, since the 2000s, the Defendant had been sentenced to two times the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, three times the fine, and the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, including the following: (a) the Defendant was driving a shottop car near the shot Station and stopped in the signal signal at the crosswalk; and (b) the police dispatched after receiving a report that it would interfere with the traffic due to the Defendant’s vehicle under the stop, and (c) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, and (d) the police was under the influence of drinking, and (d) he was required to comply with the alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds, despite the considerable reason to recognize that he was under the influence of drinking, the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, and thus, the Defendant did not comply with the request to comply with the alcohol measurement without any justifiable reason, and thus, the punishment imposed by the lower court is within the proper

3. Conclusion