A. The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions through drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder is unlawful.

B. The Defendant appealed on the ground that the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, two years of probation, one hundred and sixty hours of community service, and forty hours of attending class) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had a drinking condition at the time of the instant crime, but in light of various circumstances, such as the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant had a record of having been punished as an act of violence several times on the assertion of unfair sentencing, that the Defendant had the victim feel a severe sense of shame and dissipure before being viewed by many people, and other various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, such as the method of the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.