A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak, with a mental disability with a third degree of disability, who suffers from her severe pain at the time of the instant crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the Defendant’s mental appraisal of the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical weakness, the result was reported that “it does not seem to have any impediment to the ability to discern things and decision-making ability as a given normal range without any diagnosis of a unique mental disorder,” and in light of the method by which the Defendant committed the crime, the statement attitude in the investigative agency, and its contents, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes due to disability or depression has been weak.

3. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the judgment of the court of first instance, compared to the judgment of the court of first instance, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not change from the judgment of the court of first instance compared to the judgment of the first instance. In particular, without any special reason, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing in comparison with the judgment of the court of first instance, and in light of the fact that there is a repeated crime committed against many and unspecified persons, a repeated crime committed during the period of repeated offense, and the failure

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.