A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of depression, decentralization, disability, or alcohol.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the Defendant appears to have been in a state of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but considering the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s statement details and attitude to the investigation agency, and the degree of memory of the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have reached a state of low capacity to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. In light of the fact that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s argument on the assertion on unfair sentencing, and there was no excessive difference in the termination of the execution of the sentence due to a special intimidation, etc., and thus, each of the instant crimes was committed at the same time, and the victims did not agree with the victims, and did not recover from damage, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.