A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of the instant crime.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the act of the defendant before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the amount of the defendant's reputation, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, it cannot be seen that the defendant was found that he had a considerable number of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but it does not have a weak state of ability to distinguish things and make decisions. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is rejected

B. Regarding the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant again committed the instant crime without having been sentenced to imprisonment even though he was under the period of suspension of execution. The instant crime was committed by using excessive materials, which are dangerous goods, and the nature of the crime and the criminal situation are bad in light of the content thereof, and the Defendant did not take any practical measures to recover from damage up to the trial, and did not reach an agreement with the victim. According to Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act applicable to the instant crime, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the statutory punishment is limited to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than three years, the maximum sentence of the applicable punishment is limited to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than one year and six months, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is acknowledged that the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and there is no reason for the Defendant’s assertion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.