A. The Defendant with mental or physical disorder is illegal to recognize the Defendant’s mental or physical disorder, even though he had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking at the time of committing the thief in this case.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is deemed that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant larceny crime, but in light of various circumstances, such as the course and process of the instant larceny crime, means and method, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the crime, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant had the history of having been punished several times as a criminal act of the same kind of fraud; (b) the Defendant did not endeavor to recover from damage; and (c) various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, such as the motive and method of the instant crime; (b) the circumstances after the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age and character and conduct, the sentence

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.