A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant: (a) was in a physical and mental weak state where the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak at the time of the instant crime, stroke, stroke, stroke, stroke, and stroke, stroke mm, and stroke stroke stroke sm

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which were acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Even if the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the drug and excessive drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions.

Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder. This provision includes not only an intentional act but also an act of free in the cause due to negligence, and may have predicted the occurrence of danger (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). In addition, the defendant has been punished more than twice for the same crime, such as assault, bodily injury, damage, damage to property, damage to public property, obstruction in the performance of official duties, obstruction in the performance of official duties, and there is a history of punishment due to drinking and traffic accidents. In light of the above, the defendant is deemed to have been able to fully aware or have been aware of the risk of repeating the same crime under the state of his own action.

The defendant shows his own drinking immediately before the crime of this case and the state of mental disorder.