A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was in a state of mental disorder by drinking a week 1 disease at the time of the instant case, as a person suffering from alcohol-related dementia.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the record on the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the recognition of and against the instant crime, and there seems to be some circumstances to consider the background of the instant crime.

The defendant suffers from alcohol dementia, is not in a state of health at 4th degree of disability, is living alone without family, and is not in an economic situation for basic livelihood recipients.

However, the defendant has already been punished for the same crime twice.

In this case, the defendant divided the fire alarm devices into subway stations, and continued to divide the fire alarm devices into several times without opening, even though it interferes with the unloading of the fire alarms and the passage of the pedestrians.

In light of these circumstances, even if the above favorable circumstances were to be considered, it cannot be said that the above sentence of the court below is unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.