A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of 10 months is too heavy) by the lower court

2. According to the records of the judgment on the claim of mental retardation, it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the alcohol at the time of committing each of the crimes of this case, in full view of the defendant's means and methods of committing each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's attitude and behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendant’s confessions of each of the instant crimes, agreed with certain victims, and the victims’ damages do not seem to be significant, etc. are factors for sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, during the above period from May 4, 2013, the Defendant committed several crimes as stated in the lower judgment, and committed a crime continuously without being aware of the fact that he was arrested and detained as an offender in the act of crime several times during the above period. The Defendant had the record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and the lower court appears to have sentenced ten months of imprisonment in consideration of the factors favorable to the Defendant, such as the circumstances agreed with some victims, etc., and determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court is within the proper scope of sentencing.

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

4. 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.