A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had no or weak mental disability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, although the defendant's intellectual ability is deemed to be insufficient to have a normal judgment and response ability due to light of the intellectual disability of the Do, the defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of the above crime, in light of the process, method and method of each of the above crimes, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime.

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

B. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant confessions the illegal assertion of sentencing; (b) the Defendant did not focus on the degree of damage; and (c) had been punished several times in the case of larceny in the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant continued to commit each of the instant crimes without improving character and behavior even during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind; and (b) there was no agreement with the victims; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, motive, frequency of the commission of the crime; (d) the method of the commission of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the statutory minimum sentence, is too unreasonable, and therefore, this part of the

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.