2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mental disability, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under drinking. However, in light of the background of the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit

B. The defendant, who made a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, is deemed to have led to the confession of and reflect on the crime of this case. However, although the defendant did not suffer damage from the crime of this case, he had been punished eight times for the same criminal records (three times for actual punishment, five times for fines). In particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of even during the repeated period, and the crime of habitually theft of another person's property is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years. The statutory punishment is the criminal whose amount of mitigation already has already been reduced and sentenced to a punishment equivalent to the lower court's minimum sentence. In full view of the above defendant's age, character and behavior, circumstances and results of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the above defendant's sentence imposed by the court below

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.