The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness of drinking with a state of suffering from early illness at the time of the instant crime.

The sentencing of the court below (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the probation observation order one year, and the community service order 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder as to the grounds for appeal, the defendant was diagnosed by Cho Jong-tae in the past and was registered as a disabled person of Grade III with mental disorder. The fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case is recognized, but the defendant was in a state of lack or lack of ability to discern things or make decisions, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, details of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and the details stated by the defendant at

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

The defendant has been punished several times as violent crimes, and this case is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the defendant's face of police officer F who requires the defendant to present his/her identification card.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the Defendant; (b) the police officer F wanted to take the Defendant’s seat against the Defendant; (c) there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine for the past ten years; and (d) other factors of all the sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence; and (c) the punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable, as such, the foregoing argument of the Defendant’s above punishment has merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.