A. The Defendant was suffering from alcohol dependence before committing the instant crime, and the lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder was unlawful, even though the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions through drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, even though he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime by contingency during the commission of unfair sentencing, and that the defendant divided his mistake and reflects his mistake, the sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was hospitalized prior to the instant crime and was in a state of drinking at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the process and process leading to the instant crime, method of crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol or alcohol use dependence.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Examining the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the method and form of assault, the degree and consequence of the victim’s injury, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the Defendant’s past punishment, and the reasons for sentencing in the lower judgment, based on a comparison of various circumstances, including the background leading to the instant crime, the method and manner of assault, the degree of injury inflicted on the victim, and the result of the damage, and the criminal defendant’s past punishment, and the reasons for sentencing in the lower judgment, even

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.