A. The Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the lower court committed an excessive error.

B. In light of the fact that the court below’s sentence that sentenced eight months of imprisonment is too unreasonable, in light of the fact that the illegal defendant recognized a mistake and reflects the fact that the defendant committed each of the instant crimes by drinking.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the background and method of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it is not deemed that the Defendant did not have a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking mental illness or alcohol at the time of the crime.

Therefore, the lower judgment that did not apply Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act to the Defendant was erroneous in violation of the statutes on the grounds for statutory mitigation of liability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

B. Each of the instant offenses with regard to the determination of the illegality of sentencing is not sufficient to commit each of the instant offenses. The Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment on October 26, 201 by force for the operation of the cafeteria of the victim D, by deceiving the victim H to drive the taxi even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the taxi expenses, and thereby inducing the Defendant to drive the taxi. The crime was committed during the period of repeated crime after the execution of the sentence was completed on August 12, 2013.