The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability, which is a reason for mitigation or exemption of punishment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the statement of opinion submitted by the defendant in the trial, it is recognized that the defendant has a detailed mental and behavioral disorder caused by alcohol use, and the defendant has received a mental and medical treatment due to symptoms such as sporadic state, anxiety, and influence.

However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior and attitude revealed before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was deprived of the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to such mental illness as above at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that there was or was a weak state.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. Although there are circumstances that may consider the circumstances, such as the confession of the instant crime and the fact that the Defendant is against confinement life through the investigation of the relevant case, and the Defendant cooperates with the investigation of the relevant case, narcotics-related crimes are not less complicated in terms of social harm and risk of recidivism, and the Defendant has already been punished several times as well as committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime, and in full view of the criminal punishment and equity with regard to other crimes similar to the instant crimes, as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions of the instant case, including the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed unfair for the lower court’s punishment to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.