The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing each of the instant crimes with mental and physical disorder, he was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it may be recognized that the Defendant had a drinking condition at the time of each of the instant crimes. However, in light of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively minor.

However, the crime of this case is not a good crime because the defendant habitually received the alcohol and salbling equivalent to the sum of 72,000 won in the market price by habitually eating the defendant.

The defendant is subject to criminal punishment on several occasions for the same crime, and in particular, the crimes of this case were sentenced to punishment for the same crime, and they were committed during the period of repeated crime.

B. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the victims have not recovered from damage until the victims have suffered damage, and that the defendant has made a serious effort to recover damage.

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively takes into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theory.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.