A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to symptoms of alcohol or alcohol dementia.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the Defendant appears to have been in a state of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but considering the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s statement details and attitude to the investigation agency, and the degree of memory of the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have reached a state of low capacity to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, there is a history of having been punished several times for the same kind of crime, the crime committed on August 21, 2019 at the same time after being investigated by the investigative agency on July 16, 2019, and the crime committed on August 21, 2019 at the same time, and considering the favorable circumstances for the defendant in the original judgment, the lower court’s punishment is heavier than the lower limit of the recommended sentence specified in the sentencing guidelines.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.