The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) had weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendant did not have a state of mental or physical disability.

Even if not, the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was found to have opened a bath room and removed the bath room, and broken down the glass and the post door glass by using the brick.

In light of the defendant's behavior, even if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, it is not deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions to the extent that he would have been exempted from criminal liability.

In addition, even if the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, it is reasonable not to reduce mental disability for the Defendant considering all the circumstances indicated in the record.

In the same purport, the lower court’s decision that did not reduce mental and physical disability is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine,

B. The fact that there was an agreement with the victim on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, there are several criminal records of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to robbery and injury is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

The lower court, comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing, determined the sentence against the Defendant.