A. The Defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disability due to mental illness, etc. at the time of committing the crime. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant does not seem to have reached a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment in consideration of the unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances.

There is no circumstance that the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, or that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination of sentencing, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant had a lot of criminal convictions; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crimes; and (c) the offender committed the instant crimes during the period of repeated crimes; or (d) the applicable sentences.

In addition, considering the circumstances, age, character and behavior, environment, etc. after the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate and too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the part of the judgment of the court below’s second seven pages of “inception of disturbance” shall be corrected to “inception of disturbance.”