A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability or mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. Although the defendant was somewhat drunk at the time of each of the crimes in this case, considering the background, process of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant acknowledges the instant criminal act and the victims do not want to punish the Defendant, the Defendant has the record of criminal punishment more than 20 times, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant criminal act during the repeated crime period due to the crime of interference with business similar to the instant case, in full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the environment, the circumstances and details leading to the instant criminal act, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s 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.