A. Although the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disorder at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, it was erroneous in the lower court’s judgment that did not reduce the punishment or not guilty, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the punishment of 4 months in imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes listed in No. 1 and No. 5 in the annexed list of crimes among the crimes of No. 2 in the judgment of the court below, and the remaining crimes among the crimes of No. 2 in the judgment of the court below and No. 3 in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant is deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of each crime of this case, but the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since it cannot be deemed that there was a state or weak, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing: (a) the defendant acknowledged each of the facts charged in this case and against his mistake; (b) the degree of damage caused by each of the crimes in this case is relatively heavy; (c) L and G were not punishable by the victim of interference with business; and (d) each of the crimes in this case appears to be attributable to the existence of the defendant’s alcohol; (b) on the other hand, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case, even though 10 times the past record of punishment for the same violent crime, including the past record of suspended sentence, and again again committed each of the crimes in this case; (c) in particular, some of the crimes in this case committed during the period of suspended sentence after being sentenced to the suspended sentence, was committed against many unspecified victims for a long time.