A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disability or mental health disorder.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is deemed unreasonable as it excessively funched.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the Defendant’s assertion, even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was found to have been unable to partially memory the situation at the time of the instant crimes, in light of the Defendant’s reputation, the background and process of the instant crimes, the means and method, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crimes, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision under the influence

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion, it is recognized that the defendant had the same criminal record four times (three times of fine, one time of suspended execution), and that the crime of this case is not good because the defendant destroyed the public goods under the influence of alcohol, destroyed the disturbance at the restaurant, and displayed the disturbance to the police, and caused a variety of crimes and great damage to the general public.

However, it is not determined that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the defendant led to the confession of the crime; (b) the defendant was a criminal act committed by drinking alcohol and contingently while living conditions; and (c) the amount of damage to public property was repaid in the event of damage to public property; and (d) the defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and method of the crime in this case; and (c) other circumstances after the crime, etc.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.