The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the crimes in the 2018 Highest 2794 Case.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances, even though the court below was found to have been in a state of masterion at the time of each crime in the case, it does not seem that the defendant had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, it does not accept this part of the defendant’s assertion.

① The Defendant clearly states in an investigative agency about the background and degree of the detection of each of the crimes in 2018 Highest 2794 and the details and degree of the assault he/she committed in the process, uniforms of police officers, and the process of measuring drinking after he/she was arrested as a flagrant offender.

② Even if the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to excessive drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person’s mental disorder. This provision includes not only free act in the cause of intentional act but also free act in the cause of negligent act, and thus is subject to the case where the occurrence of danger was foreseeable (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005), even though it was possible to anticipate the occurrence of danger due to a person’s mental disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). The Defendant voluntarily expresses that he would not control his behavior upon drinking, and the case of 2018Da321