The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things under the influence of alcohol or make a decision by himself/herself.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to the claim of mental retardation, it can be recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time of the instant crime.

Unlike this premise, even if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, the defendant, despite having been punished several times under the influence of alcohol, is again committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol, while the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the influence of alcohol. Thus, the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger, and caused the state of mental disorder as a person, and thus, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act concerning mental and physical disability cannot be applied.

(Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act). The defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and opposed to the allegation on unfair sentencing.

The defendant agreed with the victim, and the victim does not want to punish the defendant.

After the crime of this case, the Defendant committed the crime of this case.

Defendant is not in a state of health with a physically handicapped person of Grade IV.

However, the defendant committed the same kind of crime against the victim who is a de facto spouse over several times, and is also under the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime.