A. The Defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was drunk, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the Defendant’s words and conditions before and after each of the instant crimes, which are acknowledged by the records on the determination of the claim for mental retardation, it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak state of ability to discern things and make decisions at the time, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion for mental retardation is rejected.

3. In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court does not admit the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing on the ground that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though the Defendant had been punished several times for violent crimes even though the Defendant had been committed, most of the crimes of this case committed the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution, and the Defendant committed the crime of this case. The number of each of the crimes of this case was considerably poor and did not recover from damage, and there is no new special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.