The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant special robbery, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability under the influence of taking drugs and drunkly.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental disability, the Defendant asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court, which duly admitted and investigated the evidence, determined as follows, based on the following circumstances, i.e., ① the victim C’s statement at the police at the time of committing the special robbery of this case that the Defendant did not snife the Defendant at all at the time of committing the special robbery of this case; ② the Defendant gets back the property after wearing a ske and preparing a knife, and ③ the witness was released from the arrest of the knife after being discovered, and the escape. In light of the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the special robbery of this case, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have any weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Even if the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim for mitigation of the punishment of mental disorder under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just.

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

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of each of the crimes in this case, the full recovery of the damage from the special robbery in this case, and the victim E of the crime of intrusion on the structure in this case was the Defendant’s preference against the Defendant.