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

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

2. According to the records of determination on mental and physical disability, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, in light of various circumstances, such as the circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the fact that the Defendant stated to some extent his/her own memory before and after the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The following are circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s violation of the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the driving distance was relatively short; and (c) the fact that there appears to exist family members to support the Defendant; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment with labor, despite the number of penalties for the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time

Considering the above circumstances and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s occupation, family relation, health, age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. 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.