The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, does not memory each of the crimes of this case.

At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records of this case as to the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the defendant was a drinking state at the time of each of the crimes in this case is recognized.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crimes, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not have or did not have the ability to discern things at the time of each of the instant crimes.

The defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

In full view of all the sentencing factors revealed in the records and arguments, including the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case without being involved during the period of probation, the sentencing of the court below is too large, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit.