The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant is found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, but in light of the developments leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant was in the state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

2) The lower court rendered a judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable conditions of the Defendant, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee (a period of not less than one month) [the scope of the recommended sentence] [the scope of the business]] and the mitigated area (a period of not less than one month or eight months)] (a special mitigated person] and the mitigated area (a special mitigated person] and the result of multiple crimes that are not subject to the sentencing guidelines: (a) as a result of the handling of multiple crimes that have not been subject to the sentencing guidelines: (b) for not less than one month (the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines have been set and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines have not been set are not set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court sentenced six months to imprisonment

In full view of the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed without being aware of, and the sentencing guidelines was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in particular, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the defendant agreed with the victim H and was sentenced to a fine twice during the period of suspension of execution.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, the age, sex, environment, circumstances and results of the crime of the defendant, and the crime.