A. A. The defendant has the existence of alcohol in a state of mental suffering. At the time of the crime of this case, the state of mental suffering was in a state of mental suffering.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental retardation, it is difficult to view that the defendant has the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, even though it is recognized that a part of the crime was committed while drinking alcohol. However, in light of the background, means, methods, and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to view that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and means and methods of committing the instant case’s records in addition to the unfavorable circumstances (the period of repeated offense, multiple same type of frauds) and favorable circumstances (self-concept) against the Defendant considered in the lower court’s argument on unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

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.