The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The judgment of the court below which did not reduce mental and physical disability when the defendant alleged mental and physical disability was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical disability.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, which were revealed in the judgment on the claim of mental retardation, the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime is deemed to have not been in a state where the ability to discern things or make decisions was weak at the time of the instant crime.

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

B. The Defendant’s confessions the instant crime, appears to repent of his mistake, and the victim C does not want punishment against the Defendant, and the damage was returned to the victims and the damage was fully recovered, etc. are favorable circumstances to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) there are many criminal convictions in the Defendant; (b) one year of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny; and (c) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again only in the month in which the execution of the sentence is terminated; (d) the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) due to the aggravation of repeated offenses was sentenced to the lowest sentence of the statutory penalty for three years, which has already been sentenced to discretionary mitigation from the lower court; and (e) other factors that may serve as the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive for the instant offense; and (e) there is no room for mitigation of the sentence

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

3. Conclusion.