The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disorder having weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, solely on such circumstance, there was a lack of mind and body of the defendant to reduce the defendant's ability to assume responsibility at the time of committing the crime.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, there was a little mental and physical weakness.

In addition, as recognized in this case by the defendant himself, the defendant has already shown a tendency to exercise violence before the crime of this case was committed, and as a result, he was subject to criminal punishment several times, and the defendant, who was well aware of the fact that he could exercise a sub-defensive violence, had been prevented in advance by drinking so that he is not in a state of mental disorder due to drinking, and has been in a state of mental disorder so that he

Furthermore, the Defendant was under suspension of the execution of official duties due to interference with the crime committed under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and was more and more interested in preventing the Defendant from committing a crime under the influence of alcohol.

However, the defendant predicted the occurrence of such risk and told the defendant again to commit the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, it is reasonable that the defendant does not reduce his liability for mental and physical disorder pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that had been in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol and sought a mitigation of liability accordingly, and there is no error in law.

. The defendant-appellant.