The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, as a mental patient, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking and drinking alcohol under the influence of a mental and therapeutic medicine at the time of the instant crime.

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

Judgment

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant is found to drink at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendant's attitude before and after the crime of this case, and the speech and behavior, etc., it cannot be seen that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of

B. We examine the assertion of unfair sentencing: (a) the defendant confessions the crime of this case; (b) the mobile phone that the defendant stolen was temporarily returned to the victim; or (c) the defendant had a record of criminal punishment more than ten times, including the criminal records of four times of punishment for the same crime; and (d) the defendant committed the crime of this case when he was sentenced to punishment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) and not less than several months after the execution of the sentence was completed; (b) the crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime; (c) the minimum statutory punishment is more than one year; (d) the punishment of the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months in the case of this case where there are no other legal mitigation grounds; and (e) the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, etc.; and (e) other circumstances in the records and arguments of this case, the sentencing of this case cannot be determined by the court below.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.