All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with mental disorder should be sentenced to the reduction of punishment for committing the instant crime in a state with weak mental and physical disorder by drinking and drinking alcohol more than that of ordinary liquor.

2) The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior in the investigative agency immediately after the crime, etc., at the time of the crime in this case, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

In light of the fact that even if the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness, even if he had been in a state of mental and physical weakness, the defendant was punished for committing a violent crime under the influence of alcohol on several occasions prior to the crime of this case, and the defendant was aware that he had committed a violent act differently from his usual meeting. Thus, even if the defendant predicted the risk of committing a crime after drinking, his mental and physical weakness may not be mitigated as constituting the so-called "free act in the cause" under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.

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

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.).