The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles on mental and physical disorder, the lower court’s rejection of this case’s mental and physical loss or mental weak condition due to mental illness and alcohol suffering at the time of the instant crime by misapprehending the legal principles on mental and physical disorder.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of mental disorder requires not only mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, but also mental disorder such as mental disorder lacks or decrease in the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with a normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, he/she cannot be deemed a mental disorder if he/she had the ability to discern things and control action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425, Aug. 18, 192). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is recognized as having self-feasible drinking alcohol.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime:

There is no evidence to see that there is no statement that the defendant dices alcohol at the time of the crime, or that the defendant dices alcohol at the time of the crime, or performed an abnormal speech different from that of the usual body, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the defendant suffers from mental illness or received treatment for this, the defendant does not mention mental illness at the investigative agency, and the defendant tried to conduct a pre-trial investigation at the court below. However, although the defendant tried to conduct the pre-trial investigation, it would be inconsistent with the above documents if he did not feel the necessity of the pre-trial investigation and would undergo the pre-trial investigation.