A. The Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical loss or mental weakness, even though the Defendant was found to have drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, in full view of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the statement made by the investigative agency, which are acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

B. The fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflecteds his mistake, and that the value of stolen objects is not so significant is favorable to the defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant has been punished 14 times for the larceny crime, 11 times among them, the defendant was punished as a sentence, and the defendant committed the crime of this case before nine months have passed since completion of the execution of a sentence for the same crime, and the minimum statutory penalty for special larceny of this case is one year, and the punishment sentenced by the court below is the lowest of statutory penalty for the punishment for the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable notwithstanding the above favorable circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.