beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the fact that the Defendant was under influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime may be acknowledged, but on the other hand, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, the background, means and method of the Defendant’s crime, and the specific behavior patterns of the Defendant before and after the crime, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions
Since it seems that the defendant's mental and physical disability cannot be seen as being or weak, the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. Although the defendant's wrong determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized, and the defendant made a deposit of KRW 600,00 for the victimized police officer when it comes to the trial, the defendant took into account his/her misunderstanding and destroying the equipment, and exercised physical force on the body of the above police officer several occasions, the defendant has committed the crime of this case during the grace period, even though he/she received a prior notice of the suspension of execution on July 3, 2012 as to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) (Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The defendant was detained by the detention warrant of this case while being under the influence of alcohol on April 17, 2014, it is difficult to see that he/she was well aware of the crime even after the crime, and considering all the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, etc.
3. Conclusion, the defendant.