The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant with mental or physical disorder is under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, and thus, he/she ought to be mitigated or exempted from punishment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of mental disorder requires not only mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, but also mental disorder such as mental disorder lacks or decrease in the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with a mental disorder is a person with a normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, he/she cannot be deemed a mental disorder if he/she had the ability to discern things and control action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425, Aug. 18, 192). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the crimes in this case

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: (a) the motive and circumstance leading up to the Defendant’s commission of each of the instant crimes at an investigative agency; (b) the Defendant’s demand on the part of the hospital; and (c) the content and method of each of the instant crimes; (d) the Defendant’s behavior before and after the commission of the instant crimes; and (e) the Defendant’s statement attitude in the investigative agency; and (e) the Defendant has lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. Each of the instant crimes committed on the grounds that the Defendant did not take his demand from the hospital, thereby obstructing the hospital business several times on the grounds that the Defendant did not take his or her own demand, and be in the sick room.