The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime was committed, etc. as revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and thus, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.

B. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is planned not only to steals things worth KRW 3,560,00 through 25 times habitually, but also to the frequency of theft. The several laws also intruded the victim's business office by destroying the entrance, etc. and thus commit the larceny. The crime of this case is significant; the defendant was unable to recover the victims' damage in whole or was used by the victims; the defendant was punished by imprisonment or suspended execution on two occasions due to special larceny, etc.; the defendant committed the crime of this case in this case; the crime of this case constitutes a crime falling under Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, which constitutes a crime of habitual larceny, and its statutory punishment is determined by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for more than three years, and thus, constitutes a condition for sentencing, such as the age, speculative environment, etc. of the defendant.