The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a mental and physical disability or defectiveness, or unreasonable sentencing);

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of assault against a driver of mental or physical disability, and was in a state of mental or physical disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental or physical disability or mental disorder, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, in full view of the circumstances and methods of the crime of this case, which can be known by the above evidence, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, and the fact that the victim who escaped from the vehicle is threatening to drive away, and has committed violence.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the principle of trial-oriented and directness, and there is an area unique to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).