A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the claim of mental retardation, it is not recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, but considering such circumstances, considering the following: (a) the circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes; (b) the means and method of committing the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant’s attitude and behavior before and after the instant crimes; and (d) the Defendant’s statement attitude and response at the time of the investigation immediately after the arrest, etc., it is not recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crimes

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime, and that each of the instant crimes was committed again during the repeated crime period due to the same crime, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, the background and result of the crime, etc., even though considering the fact that the Defendant was able to repent, and live in good faith due to the aggravation of alcohol, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.