The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol while he/she was imprisoned with drugs due to uneasiness, depression, depression, etc.

(b) Original sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution); and

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of cardiopulmona, the fact that the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of the background and means of the crime committed by the above evidence, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant, at the time of the crime in this case, was in a state of falling short of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the following reasons: (a) alcohol or mental illness or taking clothes.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.