A. Although the Defendant was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime was committed, etc. as revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is deemed that the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing may take into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant confessions all of the instant crimes; and (b) the victim of the instant crime of causing the destruction of and damage to deadly weapons of this case was submitted to the trial; (c) the crime of causing the destruction of and damage to deadly weapons of this case was destroyed by a knife, which is a deadly weapon; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to violence-related crimes several times; and (e) the Defendant expressed his intent that the victim does not want the punishment against the Defendant even in the lower court; and (e) comprehensively examines various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness environment, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

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