The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant with mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental or physical weakness or loss.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case, considering the background of the crime of this case, the method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, etc., it cannot be seen that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things, so the defendant's mental and physical disorder assertion is without merit.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance court by destroying the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, while the sentence of the first instance is within the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the appellate court on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

The Defendant agreed with the victim V for the first time, but if the total frequency of the crime and the amount of damage are not sufficient, the agreed part is extremely limited and the circumstances were changed to the extent that the sentence of the lower court is mitigated.

It is difficult to see that the sentencing of the lower court is reasonable to be respected.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.