A. The Defendant was under a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime under the influence of alcohol without adjusting impulses, while having low intellectual ability, and was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim of mental disability, the circumstance where the Defendant’s intelligence is much lower than the average, and where the Defendant satisfys drugs due to influence, depression, etc. is recognized.

However, in light of the process, content, means, and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it does not seem that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

3. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly on the grounds that he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime; and (b) the Defendant was sentenced to multiple punishments on the grounds of larceny, etc.; (c) the background of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable; and therefore, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit.

4. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.