The appeal is dismissed.

2. Determination is reasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental disability caused by the ex post facto supported by alcohol dependence; and (b) the Defendant’s agreement with the victim E, H, J, and the victim C on the 3rd page Nos. 1, 24, 25 of L Evidence Nos. 3, and 24, and 25 of L evidence Nos. 3, which manage a car owned by the victim E, H, J, and C, that the Defendant did not want to punish the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s health appears to be inappropriate.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant has been punished several times due to violent crimes, and that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to violent crimes, and that the defendant damaged the car by carrying dangerous things, in light of the type of crime, the liability for the crime is grave, and all of the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, consequence and circumstances after the crime, it

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. In accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the "Article 366 of the Criminal Act" in the fourth third part of the judgment of the court below is corrected to "Article 366 of the