The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court erred by the Defendant, even though the Defendant was in a state of mental disability caused by the exploitation of a state of mental disability.

B. Considering that the Defendant’s mistake in the final judgment of unfair sentencing was recognized as a whole, and the Defendant did not have taken a victim for the purpose of retaliation from the beginning in the case of retaliation intimidation, the sentence (four years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, the defendant does not seem to have been in a state where the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant: (a) was provided with alcohol and he/she through deception at the main point without intent or ability to pay the price on seven occasions habitually; (b) assaulted the main owner of the instant crime demanding the payment of the drinking value; and (c) assaulted the police officer at the police station district to interfere with the performance of official duties.

In addition, the Defendant assaulted the cafeteria proprietor by asking for alcohol in the restaurant, and the cafeteria reported the Defendant to the police, and the said victim threatened the said victim with the purpose of retaliation twice on the ground that the said victim reported the Defendant to the police, and at the same time interfered with the performance of official duties by the viewing police assigned for special guard, and at the same time, inflicted an injury upon the Defendant.

Although each of the above crimes committed by the defendant is very poor in light of the motive, method, frequency and period of the crime, the defendant was unable to recover the damage or receive a letter from the victims.

In addition, the defendant was sentenced six times to imprisonment, and is subject to criminal punishment.