2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of the background and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in the absence or weak state at the time of the crime in this case.

3. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment in consideration of the unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances.

In full view of the facts that are the conditions for sentencing in this court, in particular, even though the Defendant had been already punished several times, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of the same repeated crime, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, or that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination of sentencing as it is.

In addition, even if the circumstances and results of the instant crime were to be considered after the commission of the crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court is not deemed to be inappropriate because it is too unreasonable.

4. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.