A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case, considering various circumstances such as the background leading to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, the process of the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the crime of this case, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. The Defendant’s confession of the instant crime is favorable to the Defendant; however, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense; the Defendant has been punished several times due to the larceny; the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in sentencing determination, unlike various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence, and circumstances before and after the crime.

In full view of the circumstances to be assessed or the fact that there is no new data that was presented in the course of the trial of sentencing at the party, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.), since the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is unlimited and it does not seem unfair, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.