A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental problems.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant reflects his wrong, etc., the sentence of the original court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted that the defendant had the same purport as the argument in this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the following grounds: according to the mental appraisal statement against the defendant, it can be acknowledged that the appraiser did not have any mental symptoms to the extent that he did not diagnose the defendant's unique mental disorder; in light of the circumstances, means, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, the defendant's attitude to make a statement, etc. known by the above facts, records and arguments, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not seem to have had the ability to discern things or make a decision due to mental disorder at the time of the above crime.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing: (a) the Defendant was the first offender and the age of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes; (c) the Defendant violated one’s mistake while making a confession of all the crimes; (d) the instant special robbery was committed; and (e) the victim H (hereinafter “victim”) did not have any injury; and (e) the Defendant voluntarily surrendered the instant public vehicle fire-prevention crime; and (e) the Defendant appears to have de facto impossible arrest of the offender if there was no number of the Defendant.