A. Although the Defendant committed a crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, while having a lack or weak capacity to discern things or make decisions, the lower court did not consider this, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disability, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means, and method of each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime was committed, etc. as revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation above is without merit.

B. In full view of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on March 14, 2013 due to the crime of unlawful use of motor vehicles, etc. on March 14, 2013, and the Defendant committed the instant crime at 50 days only when he was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence, and that the Defendant’s sentence appears to be appropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.