A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the background of the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime of this case, the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, even though the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and thereby reflects his mistake, and the sum of the defraudeds by the instant crime is a relatively small amount of KRW 7,30,000,000, out of which was repaid, etc., the instant crime is deemed to have been performed five times from February 5, 2014 to March 5, 2014, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price.

Not only repeating a short-term crime but also repeating a short-term crime by having alcoholic beverages and food equivalent to KRW 730,000 in total and not paying the proceeds thereof.

In light of various circumstances, unlike the general intangible manners due to economic difficulties, such as drinking abdomination in the room, the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant has been punished several times due to the intangible type of fraud. In particular, on September 5, 2013, the court sentenced eight months to imprisonment for fraud on September 5, 2013 and committed the instant crime of the same kind in the same time at the same time for three months only after the execution of the above punishment was completed on November 15, 2013, and other factors, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and conditions before and after the instant argument, it cannot be deemed that the lower court's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is filed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.