The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been in a state of mental disability or mental health disorder due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the background, means and method of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this point is without merit.

B. The judgment of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the said sentence to the Defendant by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s recognition of and reflects the commission of the crime, the Defendant re-offending during the period of repeated crime, and the Defendant