A. The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, committed the instant crime in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have been in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant has a number of punishment for the crime of assault, etc. including the punishment imposed as a sentence, and the Defendant committed the instant crime whose method is similar to the applicable law during the period of repeated crime resulting from the crime of interference with business, the victims have not recovered from damage, and there is no special circumstance to change the sentencing after the judgment of the court below. In light of all the sentencing conditions stated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the environment, the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate and it is deemed unfair. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

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.