The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant suffered from depression, emotional distress disorder, etc. at the time of suffering, and the Defendant was under the weak state of ability to discern things by drinking, and thus, the Defendant should be given a reduction of mental and physical disability.

B. Among each of the crimes of this case, the crime of bodily injury by carrying dangerous objects among the crimes of this case is an act to defend B’s attack. The crime of bodily injury is an act to defend the attack of G and constitutes self-defense, and thus, its illegality is excluded, and even if it does not constitute self-defense, its punishment should be exempted or mitigated.

C. The sentence of one and a half years of imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as a regrasive disorder, personality disorder, etc. at the time of each of the crimes in this case, and was under the influence of alcohol. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the motive and means of each of the crimes in this case and the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. As to the assertion of excessive defense, if it is reasonable to view that the act of the perpetrator constitutes self-defense or excessive defense, first, as to whether the act of self-defense or excessive defense constitutes self-defense or excessive defense, and if it is said that the perpetrator’s act was committed with the intent of attack rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed and the act was set up against it, the act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense or excessive defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200).