The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental and physical weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but in full view of various circumstances, such as the background, means, and circumstances after committing the instant crime, the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weakness are without merit.

B. Taking into account the implements of the crime of determining the illegality of sentencing and the part of the injury, it appears that the victim would have significantly suffered the risk of losing his/her life, and the victim received a significant mental shock from the instant crime, etc., are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, while the defendant was arguing with the victim under the influence of alcohol, it seems that the victim first committed the crime of this case by the breath in contingency, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not much serious, the defendant is deeply against his/her mistake, and the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim in the trial is favorable to the defendant.

In this context, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee [the scope of recommended punishment]: the scope of the punishment [the scope of recommended punishment] under the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court; the scope of the special mitigation area (the minimum 1/3, and the maximum 2/3 of the punishment scope of the murder since it is a crime committed several years) / [the special sentencing sentencing person] / (the special sentencing person]. Considering that the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate because it is determined that the Defendant’s improper grounds for sentencing are reasonable.

3. Conclusion