A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental health and injury due to depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the mental appraisal document prepared by the commission of the lower court with regard to the claim of mental retardation, it is recognized that the Defendant is in a intellectual function state of the boundary line, which is an intelligence condition between the average and the level of mental retardation, in which detailed emulscopic typ is presumed in detail and is presumed in detail.

However, even in the above mental sentiment, it does not seem that the above circumstance alone does not obstruct the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions, and in full view of the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the means and methods of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the criminal investigation process, and the words in the trial process, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above disease at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and therefore,

B. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant has led to the confession of all the criminal facts of the instant case and divided his mistake, most of the damaged goods of the instant case were temporarily returned, the victims did not want the punishment of the Defendant, and there was no criminal record of the same kind of crime of the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed on January 11, 2013 by the defendant, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months on January 11, 2013, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on the present building and fire prevention, and infringed on the convenience store in the new wall without being aware of it, and was forcibly taken money and valuables on two occasions by threatening the victims of a dangerous weapon, and the nature and nature of the crime and character of the defendant's age, character and behavior.