A. Although the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, with the absence or weak capacity to distinguish things or make decisions, the lower court did not consider it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for the crimes listed in the table of crime No. 1 to No. 4 of the original decision) is too unreasonable, and the sentence of unfair sentencing (five months of imprisonment for the crimes listed in the table of crime No. 1 to No. 4 of the original decision) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument about mental disorder. In light of the process, means and method of each of the crimes of this case as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and thus, the defendant's allegation above is rejected.

B. In full view of the various circumstances, including the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed several times due to the crime such as obstruction of business, damage to public goods, etc., even though the Defendant had been punished on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the nature of the crime was inferior in light of the content and the method of the crime, etc., and as well as the fact that the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s intent not to impose punishment against the Defendant when the victim was in the trial, even if considering the fact that the victim expressed his intention not to impose punishment against the Defendant, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.