A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in the state of having lost the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol dependence, or of lacking capacity.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background of each crime of this case, the method of criminal act, the Defendant’s speech before and after the crime of this case, the Defendant’s attitude to make statements in an investigative agency, etc., which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is not recognized that the Defendant was in a state of loss or lack of the ability to discern things due to alcohol dependence at the time of this case, or of lack of such ability.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against his mistake, the total amount of damage to the instant crime was not significant, the Defendant recovered the damage to the victim C, and the said victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment.

However, the crime of this case was committed at the main point operated by the victim before one month has passed since the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and was discharged from the court below, and the nature of the crime was extremely poor, and the damage was not recovered considerably, and the defendant's records of criminal punishment including the same crime exceeded 20 times, and the defendant's age, career, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and result of the crime, and the sentencing of similar cases as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed.