A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes solely taking into account the fact that the lower court did not compare the Defendant’s previous conviction with the Defendant’s criminal facts and the instant thief and motive, but simply had the same criminal records and

B. The Defendant was in a mental and physical state because he was under the influence of alcohol and committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol due to a shock disorder caused by proof of alcohol and depression.

C. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not stipulate that the motive or method of larceny for which a criminal conviction such as larceny was prosecuted is identical or similar to that of larceny. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, even though the Defendant was under a mental and physical treatment due to alcohol proof and depression, etc., and was in drinking condition at the time of the instant crime, considering the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime prevention.

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

C. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment. In full view of the circumstances stated by the lower court and other various sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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

3. Conclusion.