The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged mental disorder committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.

B. The Defendant asserts unreasonable sentencing is a confession and reflect on the instant crime.

The Defendant, for about 10 years, was detained under the influence of alcohol when he was under the influence of alcohol, caused the instant crime to be committed on the mind that he would be able to drink and drink even if he was mentally and physically.

Defendant did not intend to inflict injury on the victim, and did not cause serious injury to the victim.

The defendant is the first offender, and it is difficult to agree with the victim due to economic circumstances.

In light of this, the punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the assertion of mental disorder is recognized as having suffered from mental illness and alcohol such as coercion at the time of the crime of this case, and having performed alcohol. However, in light of the background, means, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.

It does not seem to be in a state or weak.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Examining the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive.