The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below neglected the state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant is found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

(1) However, in light of the circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crimes.

It does not seem to have existed or weak state, and ② In light of the fact that the criminal records, which the defendant committed the violence under the influence of alcohol, can be seen as having been able to do so (Article 28 through 45 of the Investigation Records), even if the defendant was unable to control the impulse under the influence of alcohol at that time.

Even if the defendant predicted the risk of danger and self-determination, it can not be exempted or mitigated from punishment due to mental and physical disorder.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit (Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act).

In light of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is unfairly heavy, in view of the following factors: (a) although the Defendant violated the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) on the other hand, there were several occasions of violence against the Defendant; and (c) on the other hand, the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 17, 2013, which became final and conclusive on the 25th of the same month; and (d) the said judgment was committed during the suspended sentence period.