A. A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of each of the instant crimes due to a yellow disorder, etc.

B. The sentence of one year and eight months of imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of the claim of mental disorder, although the defendant suffers from a de facto disorder, etc., in light of the background, means and methods of each of the crimes of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to a de facto disorder at the time of each of the crimes of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mental and physical disability is without merit.

B. In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant was fully aware of each of the instant crimes, including the Defendant’s injury to the Victim G, against his mistake; (b) the Defendant’s family members want to take the Defendant’s prior action; (c) the Defendant’s agreement with the victim D and G; and (d) the Defendant’s health was not good.

However, the lower court seems to have already determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking account of the aforementioned circumstances, and there was a history of having been punished several times for the same type of crime. In particular, since four months have not yet elapsed since having been discharged from prison due to special robbery, etc., the crime of this case began repeatedly, and the remaining victims have not reached an agreement with the lower court until the trial, and taking into account other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, family relationship, occupation, circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the record and arguments, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.