The defendant with mental disorder in the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder due to depression, physiological symptoms, etc. at the time of the crime of this case, but the court below erred by misapprehending it.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake of unfair sentencing is against each other; (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is minor and the stolen goods are seized; (c) the Defendant supports his children by negligence; (d) on November 15, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Support on November 15, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2014; (b) in the event the lower court’s decision becomes final and conclusive, the suspension of execution should be invalidated and the said imprisonment with prison labor should be imposed; and (c) this is too harsh to the Defendant.

Judgment

In full view of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental disorder, it may be recognized that the Defendant had symptoms, such as physiological evidence, depression, etc. at the time of the instant crime, but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not apply Article 10 of the Criminal Act to the defendant cannot be deemed to have erred that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the statutes on legal grounds for reduction of liability.

The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not likely to be committed because the defendant brought the clothes of victims who habitually sold them to theft.