2. First of all, according to the records, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but was deemed to have no ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. In full view of all the circumstances such as the motive, background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

Next, it is reasonable to consider the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing. However, the Defendant’s crime of this case is likely to inflict an injury on the victim’s face in the course of performing official duties in light of the means and result of the crime, and the Defendant has a record of criminal punishment over several times, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on August 31, 2012 due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. on the part of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and committed the crime of this case on January 12, 2013 only several hours after the execution of the punishment was completed, and the Defendant committed the crime of this case on January 12, 2013. In full view of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., this part of the Defendant’s punishment is unreasonable. Therefore, there is no reason to assert this part of this.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below is ex officio.