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

B. Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing decision, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability and mental health, although the defendant is deemed to have been aware of drinking at the time of the crime in this case, in light of the defendant's ordinary drinking amount, the background, means and method of the crime in this case, and the circumstances after the crime in this case, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case, so the defendant's assertion of mental and physical disability

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, although the defendant is deemed to have agreed with the victim at the court below, the defendant has already been punished more than ten times due to the crime of the same or similar kind prior to the crime of this case, in light of the risk of a deadly weapon (the kitchen of 26cc in the blade length) used by the defendant for the crime of this case, and the victim's injury level, etc., the crime's nature and the criminal situation are very significant. The statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the injury of group, deadly weapons, etc.) is limited to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than three years, the court below sentenced the lowest sentence to be mitigated taking into account the motive and circumstance favorable to the defendant, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, etc., and other various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below is harsh.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.