A mentally ill-minded defendant was in a state of mental disability due to alcohol coexistence and impulse disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim for mental disability, namely, the amount of drinking alcohol by the Defendant at the time of the commission of the crime, the average amount of drinking alcohol by the Defendant, the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the existence of alcohol and shock disorder at the time of each of the crimes

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

The lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing: ① the Defendant repeated the same kind of crime despite having been punished several times due to larceny, etc.; attempted to assault the victim C in the course of larceny; and obstructed the fraud.

The criminal liability, such as assaulting the victim L/V, etc., is not somewhat weak for attempted crimes, and the fact that the defendant agreed with the victims or did not make efforts to recover from damage is considered as unfavorable to the defendant. ② The defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflects the fact that part of the damage caused by larceny was returned to the victims, and the amount of damage was also small, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant. ③ The defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions set forth in the arguments of the court below, including the circumstances after the crime, were determined as two years of imprisonment.

In full view of the factors and criteria of sentencing as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment on sentencing is reasonable in its discretion.