A. Defendant (1) In the instant case, the Defendant failed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the following: (a) misunderstanding of the legal principles; (b) the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, due to the “contributative disorder”, “contributative disorder”,

(2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant received medical treatment under the name of ward, such as “contributative disorder,” is acknowledged. However, in light of the background leading to the instant crime, the means and method, and the criminal records after the commission of the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s assertion was in a state where the ability to discern things or

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant both accepts the instant crime and reflects the mistake, and that the Defendant has no criminal history sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor.

However, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (Habitual Rape) and the crime of interference with business among the crimes of this case are very serious crimes committed repeatedly against female business owners operating small stores, most of the crimes were not used by the victims, and not recovered from damage. In full view of the fact that there were two times of suspended execution, fine 4 times due to violent crimes, fine 4 times due to the crime of violence, and one fine due to the crime of interference with business, and other various circumstances that form the condition for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, occupation, health, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.