A. The Defendant was suffering from alcohol dependence before committing the instant crime, and the lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder was unlawful even though the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, even though he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of unfair sentencing contingently under a state of unfair sentencing, the damage is minor and the damage is recovered by the seizure of all damaged goods, and the defendant repents and reflects the defendant's mistake, etc., the sentence (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the trial court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is not deemed that the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the dependence on alcohol use at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of various circumstances, including the process and process of the instant crime, method of the crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, although the Defendant was deemed to have been hospitalized several times due to the dependence on alcohol use and drinking, and the Defendant was aware that it was difficult for the victim to cope with the situation due to inconvenience of body and that it was difficult for him to take money at the time of the instant crime.

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

B. We examine the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the degree and result of damage, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s past records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as well as the reasons for sentencing in the lower judgment. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too excessive.