The defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing each of the crimes in this case due to depression, depression, or proof of alcohol.

In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

However, in light of the developments leading up to the instant crime, the means and methods of the crime, the defendant's attitude and behavior revealed before and after the crime, and the defendant's existing criminal records, which are acknowledged by the records of judgment on the claim of mental retardation, it cannot be seen that the Defendant did not have a state that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes, and thus,

Although the Defendant’s mistake on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the Defendant’s mistake, considering the following as a whole: (a) the same criminal power has already been repeatedly committed during the period of repeated offense; and (b) the Defendant’s age, family relation, criminal record, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, means and method of the offense; and (c) the motive and circumstance of the offense and circumstances after the offense, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected, since the sentence imposed by the lower

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.