The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

According to the record as to the assertion of unfair judgment on sentencing of mental and physical disorder as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime, and that the defendant was hospitalized in the military after proof of alcohol alcohol before that time, and that he was hospitalized in the same diagnosis name even around January 2017 and around April 2017.

However, in light of the background of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have any ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above circumstances at the time of the crime in this case (the Defendant continues to repeat a similar crime in which he knows that he did not receive treatment with the proof of alcohol.

Therefore, the defendant was in the above condition.

Even if the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger, such as crime, but caused a mental disorder by his own person.

Since it is reasonable to see that the provision related to reduction or exemption of mental and physical disorder cannot be applied pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the court below rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the defendant had a criminal record of identical violence several times, and (b) the defendant committed the crime of this case at least six months after the completion of the execution of the sentence; (c) the case is relatively weak; and (d) the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant by unanimous agreement with the victim; and (e) the defendant's opposite nature is more favorable; and (e) the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, means and consequence; and (e) the sentencing conditions

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

The sentencing conditions mentioned above are the sentencing conditions.