The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime and was in a habitual condition.

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of loss of mind, the defendant may be found to have been in a state that he had weak ability to discern drinking things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime of this case, but it is determined that the defendant did not reach a state where he did not have such ability. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant criminal acts; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant criminal act in a state of mental and physical disability by drinking alcohol; (c) the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the degree of damage is minor; and (e) the damaged product was returned to the victim.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime under a manual similar to the previous criminal records as it did not throw away the habit of larceny even though the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times as criminal punishment for the same type of larceny; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.