A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the claim of mental retardation, the defendant is deemed to have a certain degree of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant'

B. Although there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant divided his mistake into one another, and the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingency under the influence of alcohol, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed. However, in light of the method of crime and degree of damage, the crime of this case was committed not only by the defendant, who has been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, but also committed the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution. The court below has already sentenced the lowest sentence among the applicable sentences through discretionary mitigation, the fact that no agreement has been reached with the victim until the trial, and considering the motive and circumstance leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstance after the crime, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and other various conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion has no merit.

3. Conclusion.