A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things, with severe alcohol dependence.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Unlike the defendant's assertion of mental disability, it is insufficient to view that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things due to alcohol dependence. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The court below's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is more favorable than that of the defendant (the original trial seems to have sentenced to a punishment lower than that of the defendant in consideration of these circumstances) but on the other hand, even though there are many criminal convictions including the defendant two times of imprisonment, they again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, etc., it is disadvantageous to the defendant. In addition, in full view of the circumstances of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, Defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and the above argument of the defendant is not reasonable.

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.