A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes due to alcohol dementia, etc.

B. The sentence of eight-month imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the result of the response of the Mayor of Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the fact-finding of the party's mental disorder, the fact that the defendant received medical treatment at Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital from November 19, 2013 to March 31, 2014 is recognized due to symptoms, such as continuous drinking, memory under the influence of memory, infection, and apprehensions, etc.

However, in light of the process and method leading up to the crime known by the records and pleadings of this case, and the statement and behavior of the defendant before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the defendant's mental and physical disability argument is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant has a past record of criminal punishment more than 50 times, and is punished for violent crimes, on about 25 occasions.

The Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for the crime of extortion, etc., and was released on January 30, 2013, but was not aware of it, and again committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.

The risk is also very high in the light of the crime committed by assaulting a driver who is driving a bus using many public.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.