A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the defendant suffered from mental illness, such as stimulative disorder, etc. at the time of the instant case is recognized, but it does not seem to have reached a weak level of ability to discern things or make decisions.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant recognized and reflected his mistake, the degree of damage to each crime does not seem to be relatively inappropriate, and most victims agreed to reach an agreement smoothly with the court, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is favorable.

On the other hand, considering the fact that the defendant committed a large number of crimes in a short period of time and that the nature of the crime is not weak even in light of the law, and that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again even though he had been punished for the same kind of crime such as theft and driving without license, etc.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and motive for committing the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

4. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.