A. Since the Defendant committed a crime in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder, punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records, even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that there was an obstacle to the Defendant’s property change or decision-making ability due to the fact in light of the method and frequency of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on exemption from employment is rejected.

B. Whether the sentencing is excessive (negative), the circumstances such as the confession of the defendant and the victims expressed their intention not to punish may be considered. However, in full view of the period of the instant crime, the manual and other conditions of the sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s sentencing is acceptable, and there is no unreasonable ground for the Defendant’s assertion.

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