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

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the motive leading up to the Defendant’s crime at an investigative agency, and the method of assault, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the crime, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the crime against the wrong argument of sentencing, and the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim, there is no history of criminal punishment after 2006, and the victim committed an assault against the Defendant by setting up against the assault by the Defendant, and thereby suffered serious injury by the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant’s one-time act of creaming the victim’s her cream, and the injury of the victim is not less severe; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence, etc.; and (c) all of the sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records and variable theories, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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