In this case, the court below neglected the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts about mental and physical disorder or misunderstanding the legal principles.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, it is found that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but in light of the background, means and methods of the crime recognized by the record, and all the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the

Until it seems that there was a state or weak, and even if the defendant was unable to control the impulse at that time, the defendant became unable to do so.

However, according to the criminal records of the defendant who committed violence while under the influence of alcohol, this cannot be exempted or mitigated from punishment due to mental or physical disorder, since the defendant predicted the danger and injury of the defendant himself/herself.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit (Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act).

Although damage caused by each of the instant crimes is relatively minor regarding the allegation of unfair sentencing, considering the overall circumstances constituting the condition for sentencing, such as: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on several occasions on April 29, 2010 for the same kind of crime even after the Defendant was sentenced to the previous imprisonment with prison labor on April 29, 2010; (b) the Defendant again committed the instant crime; (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not faithfully take into account the judgment after the instant case was prosecuted, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment was unfairly heavy.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, so Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.