The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, the Defendant was in a state that, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

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

2. Determination:

A. The lower court recognized that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, deemed that the Defendant was only in a state of mental disability.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to view that the defendant was in a habitual condition due to drinking at the time of committing the crime of this case, in light of the following: although the defendant was found to have served alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, in view of the circumstance where the defendant was discovered after theft of the victim's handbag and escaped, and the circumstance where the defendant testified at the time

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case including the Defendant’s age, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, even though considering the circumstances of the Defendant’s internal decision, the sentence of the lower court, which has repeated mitigation of mental and physical disability and discretionary mitigation, is deemed to be unfair, is too unreasonable compared to the degree of the Defendant’s responsibility, by which the sentence of the lower court, which determined the maximum penalty of the applicable punishment of the law, which has been followed by repeated mitigation of mental and physical disability and discretionary mitigation, is unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

3...