The defendant is suffering from the pain due to shock disorder.

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to imprisonment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (limited to eight months of imprisonment and fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

According to the results of the mental appraisal conducted in the judgment of the court on the claim of mental suffering, it is recognized that the defendant was suffering from perjury at the time of the crime of this case.

However, even if based on the result of the above mental appraisal, the defendant did not have any obstacle to the ability to discern things or make decisions, and it is presumed that the above ability had been sound at the time of committing the crime.

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, such as the background leading up to the Defendant to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of committing the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s conduct before and after the instant crimes, it is determined that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the perjury at the time of the instant crime.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial.

In full view of the factors revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

We do not accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is not reasonable.