A. The Defendant was suffering from mental disorder or intellectual disability at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s determination on the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant was registered as a disabled person with intellectual disability 2 on March 22, 1990, and the intelligence index was measured by 61 on October 17, 2012 as a result of the intelligent inspection conducted by the Dol Hospital on October 17, 2012, but, in light of all the circumstances, such as the background, means and method of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crimes, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of each of the instant crimes.

It is not visible.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. In light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the instant crimes while committing the crime, and there is no good health condition due to intellectual disorder, urology, and urology, and that some victims of the instant crimes do not want the Defendant’s punishment. However, the instant crime is not good for the Defendant to commit the instant crime with the Defendant’s attempted theft or theft of property owned by the victims over 61 times in total for about 3 months with the habit of theft, and the use of the motor device and bicycle illegally. In addition, the Defendant was sentenced to punishment several times including the same crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime on May 10, 2013 without any effort to recover from the name of the victims.