A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of mental and physical disability, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the above crime, in light of various circumstances, such as the background, process, means and method of the crime, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime, it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, and that the defendant’s health status is not good.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant had multiple criminal records of violence including the crime of interference with business, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, the lower court sentenced to a punishment lower than the recommended criteria for sentencing guidelines, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, details of the crime, degree of damage, and circumstances after the crime, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.