A. The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions through drinking alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, but the lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental disorder is unlawful.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had a drinking condition at the time of each of the instant crimes, but in light of various circumstances, such as the process, process, means and method of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after each of the instant crimes, it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime and committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, such as the motive and method of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age and character and conduct, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.