The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (non-incompetent of mental disability and unreasonable sentencing)

A. At the time of cutting an electronic device, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

(b) mental health;

The sentencing of the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. In full view of the following: (a) the judgment of the court below and the court below on the claim of mental retardation, which can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below; (b) the defendant’s act before and after the crime; and (c) the defendant brought a cuter on his own and cut off the bareboat part of the electronic device that the defendant was attached on the bend of his residence as a correct day; and (d) the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the principle of trial-oriented and directness, and there is an area unique to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning for sentencing, declared the above sentence against the Defendant, and the Defendant led to confession and reflect on the crime.