The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disability or mental health disorder.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the defendant can be acknowledged that he had a drinking condition at the time of committing each of the crimes of this case. However, in light of the process, content, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had a weak or lost ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing each of the crimes.

On the other hand, at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions, or of lacking the ability to make decisions.

However, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 10(3) shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder. This provision includes not only a free act in a cause by intention but also a free act in a cause by negligence, which may have predicted the occurrence of danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). In light of the fact that there was a history of causing a person's mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). In light of the fact that the defendant committed a crime by negligence in a state of taking the initiative, the defendant seems to have been fully aware or could have been aware of the risk of repeating the same crime as in this case, and the defendant caused a state of mental disorder by drinking before the crime