The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of mental illness in the judgment of the court below is a crime committed in a state of mental disorder caused by an exploitation.

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

2. In light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of committing the crime stated in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time.

Even if the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the crime under the influence of alcohol, in light of the fact that the defendant committed a violent crime under the influence of alcohol and has been punished several times, etc., the defendant, even though predicted in advance his/her act that is likely to commit a crime after drinking, is in a state of mental and physical disability. Thus, the defendant's act of drinking alcohol constitutes the so-called "free act in the cause" under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act and thus cannot be mitigated for mental and physical disability.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. The defendant's appeal for conclusion is without merit, and Criminal Procedure Act.