A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant 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 (one year of imprisonment and six years of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant, who asserted mental and physical disorder, was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but did not have or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime in light of the background leading to committing the crime, the means and method of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant alleged unfair sentencing recognized the crime of this case and is against the law, and that there are circumstances leading to contingent crimes are circumstances that can be considered favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is an attempted attempt to kill a victim by using dangerous articles by the defendant, and the degree of injury suffered by the victims is not weak.

Although the Defendant had been punished several times as well as the attempted murder, the Defendant committed the instant crime, at the same time, and did not recover from damage caused by the instant crime.

In full view of these circumstances, in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health condition, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.