A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of the allegation of mental disorder, the defendant is recognized to have provided a little alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the court below, such as the circumstance leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to influence of drinking at the time of the crime

It does not seem that there was any or weak state.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a favorable circumstance, such as the fact that he/she divided his/her wrong and reflecteds his/her wrongness, and agreed with the victim.

However, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime of this case as well as various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.