A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the defendant may be recognized as having received treatment at a hospital in around 2015 due to editing-type illness, etc. However, in light of the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, that is, the economic situation as a recipient of basic living benefits is not good, and that it should take into account the equity between the case and the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the crime recorded in the record of the crime

However, considering the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the crime of destroying property in around 2016 and the fact that the damage from each of the crimes of this case has not been recovered, the lower court’s punishment is determined to be appropriate. Furthermore, considering the following circumstances, the lower court’s punishment was determined to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, even if considering the aforementioned circumstances, in light of the following: (a) there was no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered for the Defendant after the lower judgment was rendered; and (b) all of the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, means and consequence; (c) the scale and consequence of the crime;

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.