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

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the confiscation of eight months of imprisonment and the confiscated evidence No. 1) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the argument about mental disorder. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant suffered from a re-sule disorder, surface disorder, etc., and the fact that the defendant received medical treatment at M Hospital due to the above mental disorder can be acknowledged. However, in light of the background leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of this case due to mental disorder as above.

Since it cannot be seen that it has reached a state or weak, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing. Although there are circumstances to consider the circumstance that the defendant did not control an appraisal while suffering from mental illness and did not commit the crime of this case, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case more than twice in the period of suspension of execution due to the same crime, the defendant committed the crime of this case more than twice in the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, the circumstances of the crime of this case and the risk of the method of crime, etc., the crime of this case is very heavy, the victim is punished, and the court below already sentenced a minor sentence than the statutory punishment by reducing the amount of punishment, and comprehensively takes into account all the matters concerning the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, the risk of recidivism, etc., the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit.