A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the claim of mental suffering and injury, even though the defendant was found to have served alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, the defendant did not have the ability to see the right and wrong of things or make decisions due to drinking in light of the amount of the defendant's drinking, the circumstances of the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes is relatively small, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, on October 7, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment several times, including imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, and in particular, on July 10, 201, the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced four months of imprisonment with prison labor and two months of imprisonment with prison labor, and completed the enforcement of the sentence on July 10, 2012, and needs to repeatedly punish each of the crimes of this case even though it is still under repeated crime, and most of the criminal records of the Defendant were the same type ofless crime, and did not agree with the victims or did not recover from damage, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, health conditions, motive and circumstances of the offense, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the offense, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.