The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes under a mental and physical weakness, punishment shall be mitigated.

B. In light of the fact that the illegal defendant in sentencing is in profoundly against each other, each of the crimes in this case was committed by force, that the defendant agreed with the victim at the court below, and that the degree of damage is minor, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is not determined that the Defendant was in a weak state with the ability to discern things or make decisions, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even though the Defendant was deemed to have drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing.

The defendant has already been punished several times due to violent crimes and committed each of the crimes in this case without being aware of during the period of suspension of execution of official duties due to interference with the execution of official duties.

On the other hand, the defendant is in profoundly against each of the crimes of this case, and the court below agreed with the victim.

In addition, considering the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal, considering the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unlimited and it is not determined that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.