A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as depression and depression, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental health disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (each of the crimes listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 through 6 of the crimes listed in [Attachment 1] of the judgment of the lower court, and the crimes listed in [Attachment 2 through 5] of the judgment of the lower court: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, and the crimes listed in [Attachment 1] No. 7 through 15 of the same crime list among the crimes

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the defendant received a mental treatment due to depression, etc. is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental health disorder due to mental illness, such as depression, yellow disorder, etc. at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this point is without merit.

B. The judgment of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, 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). The lower court.