A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things and make decisions.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was somewhat under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Even if the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is acknowledged as follows: (a) the defendant recognizes each of the crimes of this case and reflects the fact that the amount acquired by deceit by each of the crimes of this case is not so significant; (b) however, there are not many frequency of each of the crimes of this case; (c) the defendant has served 22 times or criminal punishment due to the same fraud; (d) in particular, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to the same fraud; and (e) he committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated offense; (e) most damage has not been recovered; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and background of the crime, degree of damage, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc.

3. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.