The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was no fact that the defendant stolen or attempted to steal the victims' articles, the judgment of the court below erred by misconceptioning the facts.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so as to have weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim D was trying to enter the house after completing the school and going the stairs to open the door; (ii) the Defendant reported the victim D to the victim D and sent the victim D to the laund, saying, “the victim D,” and the Defendant sent the laundry to the laundry, again labing the labing machine by again labing the labing machine, and was sent back to the first floor through the stairs, and the police officers sent out the labing machine to the bottom of the swine labing machine (29 pages of the investigation record); and (iii) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant attempted to commit the theft of the victim’s bicycle by taking account of the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant’s assertion that the victim was born to the victim, and (ii) the Defendant’s attempted to commit the theft of the victim’s labing machine, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that the victim’s lad.

(The defendant and his defense counsel argued that witness statements of the victims are somewhat different, and that there is no evidence about attempted larceny, but it is sufficient to recognize the guilty of the charge according to the circumstances acknowledged earlier, so the above assertion is without merit).

As to the claim of mental disability.