The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was suffering from alcohol dependence after the instant crime, depression, and shock control disorder, and was in a state of mental and physical disability by drinking alcohol on the day of the crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of mental and physical disability, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim of mental and physical disability on the ground that, as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant was diagnosed from around September 2015 to undergo pharmacologic treatment, such as alcohol dependence, depression disorder, shock disorder, and shock disorder, although the Defendant was aware that he was drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, taking into account the motive and background leading up to the instant crime, method and manner of the crime, the content and attitude of the statement at the investigative agency and the lower court, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Meanwhile, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 15982, Dec. 18, 2018) provides that “The act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder may be mitigated.” Even if the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder after the enforcement of the amended provision, even if he/she committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, it is merely a ground for discretionary mitigation of punishment, and thus, the lower court cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the lower court did not have any legal mitigation on the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant did not reach the claim of unfair sentencing.