The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant of a mental disorder shall be deemed to have committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol with a mental and physical disorder or depression, and his/her responsibility shall be mitigated or mitigated.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

However, in light of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the speech and behavior at the time of the commission of the crime, and the means and method of the crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

In contrast, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.

In light of the fact that the Defendant committed a crime under the influence of alcohol on a multiple occasions prior to each of the instant crimes and was punished by the Defendant himself/herself, and that he/she was well aware of the fact that the Defendant himself/herself “spawn a person in the face of drinking alcohol or in the face of an accident,” and that he/she was in the face of attending the relevant mental department and hospital and received hospital treatment, even though he/she predicted in advance that there was a risk of committing a crime after drinking, the Defendant was placed in the state of mental disorder or mental disability

As such, the act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by his/her own under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act is not punished, or a mitigation of mental disorder cannot be made.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing, determines sentencing.