The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no erroneous determination of facts that the Defendant had the victim injured by the door mold or knife with a knife.

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

This is because it is argued after the expiration of the statement of reasons for appeal, so it is the subject of judgment of this court only in the sense of urging the ex officio request.

2. The Defendant denied the instant facts charged to the above purport when the lower court and the lower court duly adopted and examined the evidence, and sufficiently recognizes the fact that, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant had the victim faced with the victim’s left eyebrow part of the victim’s body, and the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim’s chest part on the road, which is a dangerous object, by knife, as stated in the lower judgment.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant is aware of the drinking prior to the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case and the circumstances after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant has a lack or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

4. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s decision on the unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there are new circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court.