The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim of mental retardation, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of the method and circumstances of the instant crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of arrest of a flagrant offender, and the Defendant stated in a relatively detailed memory and statement at an investigative agency on the day of the instant case, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and the fact that the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment by agreement with the victim constitutes an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished for the same crime in the past, and the fact that the crime of causing property damage in this case is considerably excessive and violent is an element of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

The court below also considered the elements of sentencing favorable to the defendant and determined the sentence against the defendant, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be specially considered in the trial compared with the original court.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.