A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in the state of mental and physical disorder under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case under the lack of the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions by force.

Furthermore, in full view of the circumstances such as the background leading up to each of the instant crimes, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, as to whether the Defendant committed the crime at the time of each of the instant crimes, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have reached the status of loss even when he was unable to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, it is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession and mistake of the instant crime, and additionally agreed with the victim G and H in the trial, and that the victim F was not punished by the Defendant, and that the degree of damage caused by each of the instant crimes is relatively minor.

However, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that he was under suspension of execution due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., drinking, and repeated commission of each of the instant crimes. As a result, it is not good that female employees, who are working at the time of the operation of the victim, seem to feel much uneasy, and there are crimes such as the nature of the crime and the circumstances that are not good, and the Defendant was guilty of the crime of causing property damage (two times) and the crime of interference with business (one time).