Judgment

The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, and that the mental illness suffered from ordinary mental illness seems to have contributed to the commission of the crime of this case even though the defendant did not reach the state of mental and physical weakness at the time of the crime of this case.

However, without any reason, the crime of this case interferes with restaurant business by placing the defendant in the restaurant, such as having had an awareness of committing a crime, and in particular, the defendant was arrested and released as an offender in the act of causing damage to other property only four days after he was released from the same crime, and was investigated by the police, and around twenty minutes thereafter, committed the crime of this case. The crime of this case is very poor in light of the motive, method and content of the crime, and the crime is very heavy in light of the crime, and the defendant did not make any effort to recover damage, and the defendant committed the crime repeatedly within a short time even though he had a history of criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and the risk of repeating the crime appears to have high, and the court below sentenced a lower sentence than the lower court's sentencing guidelines (one year to three years and six months) and it does not seem that the defendant's age, character, environment, etc. and all other circumstances showing the following circumstances.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for appeal by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.