The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of this case with mental disorder is committed in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is acknowledged that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

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

B. The lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant committed the instant crime again even during the period of suspension of execution due to the records of the same crime, committed the instant crime, and further, committed the same type of crime during the appellate trial prior to the period of the said suspension of execution, and was sentenced to a fine, and was detained prior to the date of the original judgment, and the Defendant’s repeated act of violence is highly likely to have a sense of awareness of compliance with the law, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, which was committed again during the period of suspension of execution, and that there is a great need to keep the awareness of compliance with the law, and that the Defendant’s conviction against the instant crime, and that the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim.

In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence leading up to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as claimed by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.