A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes. However, in light of the process, content, means, and method of the Defendant’s commission of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the crimes.

On the other hand, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

However, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that the former two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder. This provision includes not only a free act in a cause caused by intention but also a free act in a cause caused by negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). In light of the fact that the defendant had a number of records of punishment for the same crime committed in a state of taking place, it appears that the defendant was sufficiently aware or could have been aware of the risk of repeating the same crime in this case in the state of taking place, and since the defendant had a state of mental disorder by drinking the same person immediately before each of the above crimes, it is reasonable that the defendant is not subject to mitigation of liability for the defendant under a state of mental disorder pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the defendant's mental health.