A. The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, has committed each of the crimes in this case under the state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have been drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime, in light of the defendant's reputation, the background and process of committing the crime, the means and method, the defendant's behavior before and after committing the crime, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, but even if so, Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act applies to the defendant's act because the defendant's act constitutes a person who predicted danger and caused a mental disorder by drinking alcohol. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is groundless

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not relatively excessive since he/she led to the confession of all crimes and the degree of damage.

However, it is not determined that the sentence of the court below is improper because of the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive, means and method of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., where the defendant committed the crime of this case was committed 13 times (12 times of imprisonment and one fine) or more, and only 3 months have passed since he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of the misappropriation, which could repeat the crime of this case again.

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.