The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Mental and physical disorder (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine) was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mental or physical disorder also asserted as above, and in light of the Defendant’s drinking habits and criminal records, the court below predicted that the Defendant may block the crime under the influence of alcohol and found the Defendant to be in a state of mental or physical disorder by drinking alcohol.

As such, the defendant's act rejected the above assertion on the ground that it constitutes "free act in a cause" under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Code.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the defendant was in a state where he did not have or was unable to make a decision about the right and wrong of things or the decision due to drinking, in light of the circumstances of the crime, means and methods, and the circumstances, etc., although he was aware that he had drinking at the time of the crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

In addition, considering the type and degree of a number of crimes committed by the defendant in drinking state during that period, it seems that it constitutes a free act at least in negligent causes.

Therefore, the lower court’s decision that did not reduce the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness is correct as a result, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mental and physical disorder, thereby affecting the conclusion

B. The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the error in depth, the family members of the defendant wanted to have the defendant's preference against the defendant, the fact that the defendant already agreed with the victimized police officers from the investigation stage, and the future.