The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to render legal mitigation.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the protocol of interrogation of the police suspect against the defendant with mental disability, the defendant stated the following as to the circumstances of the crime of this case in the police.

“At the Do Council, the string of a taxi was completed, and the taxi was taken down from the red airspace, and the taxi was extracted from the string. At that time, the string was selected, and the 200,000 won was selected. The 200,000 won was entered the string. However, no matter is extracted, and the string was made by the winners of the string, and the string was made by the winners of the string. The string was the winners of the string.” In view of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, is aware of the detailed memory of the method of the string, the reasons why the string was selected, the reasons why the string was selected, the location of the string, and the location of the stolen goods, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been capable of changing the object at the time of the crime of this case, or making a decision with weak intent.

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

B. The Defendant appears to have the attitude of acknowledging and opposing the instant crime.

The amount of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively small.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime as this case, and the sentence among them reaches three times.

The defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

The lower court sentenced a maximum sentence after discretionary mitigation, taking into account various circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

The defendant's age, character and conduct, criminal records, and this case.