A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

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

Judgment

A. According to the records of this case as to the existence of mental and physical disorder, although the defendant was found to have a drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of various circumstances such as the process, method and method of the crime, the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant was in a state that he did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime

B. Whether an unreasonable sentencing is unfair or not is a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is divided and against himself, that the Defendant agreed with the victim, that the Defendant ought to support the families whose health is not good, and that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by drinking and by contingency.

However, it is an unfavorable sentencing factor, in particular, that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on November 21, 2013, which was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Violence) on November 13, 2013, which became final and conclusive on November 21, 2013, and was still under suspension of execution, and that the degree of interference with the Defendant’s business is not easy.

In addition, considering the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, various sentencing materials revealed in the pleadings, such as the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.