The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each of the crimes of this case committed by a mentally ill-minded defendant is under the influence of alcohol and is committed in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the motive and background of the instant crime, method and process of the crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior after the instant crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical disability is without merit.

Even if the Defendant had a mental and physical state due to drinking at the time of the instant crime, according to the records, the Defendant had been punished several times under the influence of drinking, and the investigative agency stated to the effect that “the Defendant had a history of having committed a same crime in the state of drinking, and had been punished several times,” and “the same shall apply to drinking, drinking, drinking, and acting without mind, by entering a restaurant without having a house at the place of drinking,” or “the Defendant has a bad faith of drinking, drinking, and drinking, without having a money at any cafeteria (the investigative record 222 pages).” However, it appears that the Defendant predicted the risk of repeating the same crime as the instant crime under the influence of drinking. As such, the Defendant had caused a mental and physical state due to drinking, the sentence may not be mitigated on the ground of mental and physical disability pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Although the Defendant had a majority of the records of punishment for the same kind of crime, interference with business, etc., the Defendant again committed the instant crime. In particular, the Defendant was released from prison after having been sentenced to a punishment for the immediately preceding crime, and the instant crime was committed only ten days.