A. The Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the argument of mental disability

A. In order for a person to be deemed to have suffered from a mental disorder by drinking alcohol, at least when there has been a significant disorder in food, or abnormal symptoms such as crypt, saliva, etc., the criminal act under the same situation may not be deemed as an act attributable to a mental disorder, unless there are symptoms such as significant disorder in food, saliva, or saliva, etc., and the criminal act may not be deemed as an act attributable to a mental disorder, unless there are symptoms such as serious disorder in food, saliva, or saliva.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do3452 delivered on March 10, 1998, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed on January 14, 2020, which was the day immediately preceding the instant case (the medical certificate among the trial records), and the Defendant’s drinking at the time of the instant crime (the investigative record 12, 19 pages) is recognized.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the defendant cannot be seen as committing the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1) The Defendant stated in the police investigation that “The 112th police officer reported that he was in front of the station, but the police officer did not take any relief measures against the resistance, and that he was going to leave the taxi to the police station in order to resist this situation without taking any relief measures against the resistance.” (No. 31 of the investigation record, even during the prosecutor’s investigation process, hereinafter referred to as “the investigation record”).