A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

2. In light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the details of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, which are acknowledged by the record of judgment on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it does not appear that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, did not have a weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, there exist circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recovered the damage to the victim at the lower court, the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant, and the Defendant did not raise the value of the stolen object.

However, in this case, the defendant intruded the victim's house and stolen the clothes of a female defendant, and the criminal liability is heavy.

The defendant appears to have been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same crime, and the crime of this case was committed during the period of the suspended sentence. The defendant was sentenced to a fine by driving alcohol even around September 2017. In light of the fact that the defendant is seriously against his/her own mistake, there is no special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the decision of the court below, and all other sentencing circumstances including the defendant's age, sexual behavior, family relation, motive, means, and consequence, etc., the defendant's punishment imposed by the court below is unlimited and unfair, and thus, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

4. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus, in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.