Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime.

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

2. Determination

A. It is not deemed that the Defendant was aware that he had drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but, in light of the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions.

In addition, even if the Defendant was in a state of mental disability, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime or the content of the Defendant’s statement about the behavior during a state of ordinary drinking, etc., the Defendant appears to have caused a state of mental disability with awareness that he/she could engage in violent behavior when he/she drinks, and thus, he/she cannot claim such state as a ground for dismissal of responsibility or mitigation of responsibility pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is not accepted.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being subject to a suspended execution period, is disadvantageous to the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the fact that there is no good quality of the instant crime committed by the police officer upon receiving a report of 112 on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the Defendant was punished for the crime of violence inclination; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being subject to a suspended execution

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and the defendant seems to have an opportunity to reflect because of being detained for more than three months in this case, the frequency of assault is limited to once, complaints about the fact that the police did not resolve noise damage suffered by the defendant, and the defendant seems to have reached an contingent crime by accumulating complaints about the fact that the police did not resolve noise damage caused by the defendant, and the amount of assault can be taken into account in the course of the dispatch of police officers.