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 property damage and assault, and due to mental disorder that occurred from around 2012, was in a state of mental suffering.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the claim of mental disability, the Defendant was hospitalized at L Hospital located in Yong-Gun from around 2012 to around 2013 as “other acute and daily mental disorder” or “other mental division disease.” Although it is found that the Defendant had expressed a somewhat broad attitude toward the police officers dispatched to the scene under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant property damage and assault, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, etc. at the time of committing the instant property damage and assault. In full view of all the circumstances such as each of the instant crimes and the process, method and method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

did not appear to have existed in or weak condition.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court, on the assertion of unfair sentencing, has already been under the influence of alcohol from around 2002, considered the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime, without improving his behavior despite having been sentenced to imprisonment or a fine, while under the influence of alcohol, considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, and determined the sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances that all of the facts pertaining to the instant crimes were recognized and that the Defendant appears to repent his mistake. The lower court appears to have taken into account the above circumstances.

On the other hand, the sentencing of the defendant after the sentence of the lower judgment is rendered, on the grounds that the victim who reported the defendant and expressed his wish to punish did not reach an agreement or recover from damage.