A. The Defendant is a person with a disability of class 3 of intellectual disability. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was registered as a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability around May 2013 and the fact of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case can be recognized. However, in light of the background leading to the instant crime, the means and method, and the criminal records after the instant crime, etc., it cannot be recognized that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the said disability or drinking.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that there is room to regard the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing as committing the crime, and against the mistake, and as committing the crime with lower intelligence than the general public, there is room to regard it as leading to the commission of the crime.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of intimidation at the Seoul Central District Court on April 28, 2011; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime on August 9, 2011 while the execution of the instant crime was completed on August 9, 2011; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the instant crime was committed despite being subject to repeated crimes; and (d) other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age and family relationship, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to do so.