The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental problems.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant is against unreasonable sentencing, and the circumstances and degree of the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the developments leading up to the instant crime, the method and content of the crime, the Defendant’s behavior and attitude before and after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Although the defendant asserts that the damp wall is a part of mental illness, this is merely a habitual nature of larceny, it cannot be viewed as a mental problem.

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

B. The Defendant’s wrong determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the Defendant, and the extent of damage to the instant crime is relatively small, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance where the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the same criminal act, since it is not appropriate to take a law as it stolen property by entering a hotel room, and the nature of the crime is not weak.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, other circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the character, conduct, environment, etc. of the Defendant, the lower court appears to have sentenced the lower sentence among the sentencing range through discretionary mitigation, taking into account all of the above sentencing factors, and it is impossible to sentence a lower sentence than the sentence sentenced by the lower court in the instant case without any legal grounds for mitigation.

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

3. Conclusion.