The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and thus was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the allegation of mental or physical disability, the defendant is deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant has a lack or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized as follows: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime, against whom the instant crime was committed, and the Defendant did not have any record of having been punished for violent crimes. (b) However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime by using the stolen doctrine, which is a dangerous object; (b) the Defendant did not recover from the nature of the crime; (c) the victim did not have been punished; and (d) the victim was also seeking the Defendant’s punishment; and (e) the Defendant’s age, details of the crime, and circumstances subsequent to the instant crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, even if considering

3. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.