A. Although the Defendant was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed, etc. as revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and thus, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.

B. Although the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is taking into account the confession and rebuttal of the instant crime, and the value of damaged goods is a small amount, the instant crime is planned by the Act on the Acceptance of Criminal Crimes, including the Defendant’s preparing tools necessary for the instant crime in advance. The Defendant has been punished three times by imprisonment and three times by fine for the same crime, such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and some of them are the crimes of the same law as the instant crime, and there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was sentenced, and the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable, since it appears that the lower court’s punishment is appropriate.

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.