A. A. The Defendant, with mental illness, was in a state of mental suffering by taking the mentally and physically handicapped at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background of the instant crime, the process of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior immediately after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s attitude to make a statement in the investigative agency, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, even though the Defendant was in a state of taking the mental and physical drugs at the time of the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disability is without merit.

B. The Defendant not only had the record of having been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, but also committed the instant crime that stolen another’s property through several times even during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of intimidation, etc.

The crime of theft of high-class visibility is highly poor since the defendant committed planned crimes, such as visiting the burial to purchase two times prior to the crime, checking the location of CCTV, checking the objects of crime, etc.

Although the damage caused by the instant crime exceeds KRW 40 million, the damage was not recovered in addition to the temporary return of adult products among the damaged goods.

귀금속매장 주인이 피해품 중 롤렉스시계(데이토나) 1개를 피고인으로부터 매수하였고 수사단계에서 이를 사법경찰관에게 임의제출하여 압수되었는바, 민사소송 등의 절차를 통해 위 피해품이 피해자에게 반환되더라도, 귀금속매장 주인이 또다른 피해자가 되는 것이어서, 피고인에 대한 형을 정함에 있어 참작할 여지는 크지 않다. .

(b).