The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

The imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Even according to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, it is difficult to view that the defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, has a lack or weak ability to discern things or make decisions, and therefore, this part of the defendant'

There are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of each of the instant crimes and partial thefts have recovered from the victims.

However, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the number of thefts and the number of thefts are significant; (b) the Defendant has been sentenced three times to a suspended sentence for a larceny crime; (c) the Defendant has been sentenced two times to a fine; (d) the Defendant did not agree with the victims; (c) the Defendant did not change the circumstances that may be considered for sentencing in the trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship; (e) the means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (e) other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime

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.