The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby omitting judgment, although the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to a mental disease at the time of committing the crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mental or physical weakness 1) Article 10 of the Criminal Act requires mental or physical disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, other than mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition due to biological factors, and it is necessary that mental or physical disorder caused by psychological disorder has lost or reduced the ability to distinguish things and the ability to control the act accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with mental disorder, if he/she had the ability to discern things or control the behavior at the time of committing the crime, he/she shall not be deemed mental or physical disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007, etc.). In addition, in determining whether a defendant was in a state of mental or physical disorder at the time of committing the crime, the court does not necessarily necessarily undergo expert’s appraisal, and therefore, the court did not necessarily have to have a state of mental or physical disorder by taking into account various materials indicated in the crime process

In light of the records, the defendant was diagnosed by theO on October 25, 2016 as "(in the event of a state injury or disease)," "(in the event of a state injury or disease)," "(in the event of a state injury or disease)," "(in the event of a state injury or disease)," "(in the event of a contingency)," and "in the event of a non-quality non-explosion." (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993).

3) However, the Defendant appears to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime (Evidence Records No. 150, etc.). The Defendant denied the charge of interfering with the instant criminal investigation agency’s duties on the following day of the instant crime, but made a state-specific statement on the charge of special injury (Evidence Records No. 47, etc.).