The argument was asserted.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant seems to drink most of the alcohol around the time of crime, and that the mental disorder does not seem to have caused the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of crime.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.

The defendant's assertion disputing this is not accepted.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that the new materials of sentencing were not submitted in the instant case.

In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant was committed several times even during the period of repeated crime, and that there is no fact that there is no damage to the victims of the destruction and damage, etc., even if the Defendant among the various sentencing factors, is favorable to the Defendant, such as the confession and reflect of the instant crime, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is excessively unreasonable and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.