A. The crime of this case with mental disorder was committed under the state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol by the defendant.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant was found to have drunk at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's reputation, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

did not appear to have existed in or weak condition.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the fact that the Defendant recognized all his own crimes and reflects them, and that the Defendant appears to have reached an contingent crime under the influence of alcohol is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, it is highly likely that the Defendant, who was sentenced to two years of probation and probation for the six months of imprisonment with labor on February 6, 2015, did not know about the suspension of execution and six months of probation, again interfered with the instant crime. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s business by avoiding disturbance by destroying the floor of the scopic at the convenience store on the day of the instant case, and then again interfered with the Defendant’s business at the convenience store at the convenience store in the same manner, and threaten the Defendant to display the scopic food to the victim, in light of the motive, method, etc. of the relevant crime, and the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victim is an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendant.

In addition, considering the various factors of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and criminal record, it cannot be said that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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.