The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was unable to breathed on the floor, and was fluordizing the face of the victim. However, there is no fact that he/she had the face of the victim due to an alcohol disease.

B. The Defendant had a mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (in particular, CCTV images), the facts charged of this case that the defendant assaulted the victim's face at one time due to beer's disease as the victim was prevented from leaving the beer's beer and the victim's face was sufficiently recognized. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. In full view of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the Defendant’s reputation amount, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though it is recognized that the Defendant was in a very large drinking state at the time of the instant crime, it was in a state that the Defendant had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(c)

On July 5, 2016, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on the part of six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with the performance of official duties on July 5, 2016, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on the 13th of the same month and was still under suspension of execution.

However, it includes the fact that the damage caused by the instant crime is not relatively more severe, that the victim expresses his intention that he does not want to punish the Defendant, and that the Defendant was detained for a considerable period of time after being detained by the court.