A. The prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. (1) The Defendant was physically and mentally under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior or the circumstances before and after the crime committed in each of the instant case acknowledged by the record as to the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness, etc., the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is not accepted.

3. There are no new circumstances or special changes in circumstances that can be reflected in sentencing after the decision of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing by both parties.

The fact that there are a majority of criminal punishment for the defendant, a considerable number of criminal records is the same, and that each of the crimes of this case has been committed more than eight times during the period of the same repeated crime, and more than all of the crimes of this case has been committed in a short time, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact of each of the crimes of this case is committed by the defendant, most of the crimes of this case are stolen from convenience stores, and thus the theft amount is not significant, and most of the damaged things are returned at the site and actual damage is unlikely to occur, and the health status of the defendant is not good, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and theories of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to be excessively light or heavy, beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor and the defendant's appeal are without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.