A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of mental and physical disability, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime in this case, in light of the defendant's ordinary amount of drinking, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant against the instant crime and did not have any record of being sentenced to the suspension of execution or heavier punishment. In the first instance, the Defendant agreed with the victim D by means of the Defendant’s supervision at the time of the reduction of the elementary school.

However, the act of forging documents in the name of another person and its signature while acting as another person at an investigative agency is not less severe damage caused by the crime of injury in this case is not very good.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, details and details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings do not seem to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

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