The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Contributory legal principles (e.g., mental disability and omission of judgment) provided that the Defendant was drunk at the time of committing the crime, and was in a state of mental disorder, and the lower court committed an unlawful act of evading the judgment on the above-mentioned claim for mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts revealed by the misapprehension of legal principles’ assertion, namely, in the court below, the defendant’s defense counsel presented a written opinion of May 21, 2014, stating the defendant’s assertion of mental disability, but the defendant and defense counsel stated on May 23, 2014 during the second trial of May 23, 2014 that the defendant and defense counsel withdrawn a claim of mental disability and mental disability. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles in failing to make a judgment.

(P) Even if the Defendant has maintained the claim of mental and physical disability in the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the failure to make a decision on the claim of mental and physical disability is an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment, unless the argument of mental and physical disability is well-grounded). Furthermore, according to the records, it is not deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make a decision due to drinking at the time of the crime, in view of the circumstances leading up to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime

B. Although there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances, such as the confession of the defendant claiming unfair sentencing, the first offender, and the deposit of KRW 15 million for the victim at the original trial, the crime committed unilaterally by the defendant on the ground that the victim's horse, who is his subordinate employee, was injured, is more serious than the nature of the crime committed unilaterally by the defendant, and the degree of injury is three.