A. The Defendant with a mental disorder was physically and mentally disabled, or physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime with a disability of Grade III with intellectual disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant seems to be a disabled person of Grade III intellectual disability.

However, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, method of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the criminal investigation agency, and the contents of the statement in the court, etc., the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disability at the time of the instant crime.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant is against the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was suffering from difficulties in normal social life due to intellectual disability; (c) the Defendant was growing up in an unstable environment; (d) the Defendant’s appearance was not good; and (e) the Defendant was suffering from economic difficulties.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant as an employee.

The following facts are that the theft of cash from the PC room is not good, that the victim's damage has not been recovered, and that the defendant recommits the crime of this case during the suspension period of execution for the same kind of crime even though the record of the same crime was four times, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the motive leading up to the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family relationship, occupation, etc., and all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court did not change the circumstances that would be different from the lower court.