2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, which were revealed in the judgment on the claim of mental retardation, the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime is deemed to have not been in the state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant appears to have led to the instant crime in favor of the Defendant, such as the confession of the instant crime and his mistake, and the Defendant’s tending from the victim during the process of borrowing tobacco, which appears to have led to the instant crime by contingency.

However, the crime of this case is about the head of the victim, which is a dangerous thing of the defendant, and the nature of the crime is not weak in light of the risk thereof, there are many criminal records against the defendant, and the defendant again commits the crime of this case during the period of suspended execution due to fraud, etc., the agreement with the victim or the recovery from damage is not made until the trial is in the first instance, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, deadly weapons, etc.) is a three-year minimum of the statutory penalty, which has already been sentenced to the maximum punishment that has been reduced by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant in the original trial, and other various factors that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and behavior, motive of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc.,

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.