A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak due to the recurrence of depression, the existing severe disorder, and the symptoms dependent on alcohol use.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though the defendant was found to have had a prone disorder, existing severe disorder, or alcohol dependence, such diagnosis alone was in a state where the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime in light of the background leading up to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

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

B. Determination of the unjust assertion of sentencing has been made repeatedly by: (a) the Defendant committed a part of the instant crime during the suspension of execution due to the same crime; (b) continuously under the influence of alcohol, obstructing another person’s business; (c) obstructing the police officer’s performance of duties; and (d) insulting another person.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.