A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to depression and apprehensions.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the assertion of mental and physical weakness in the court below, the Defendant’s treatment and custody center as a result of the mental appraisal of the Defendant at the court below’s trial was diagnosed by the general hospital from June 29, 2015 to July 24, 2015 on three occasions with the diagnosis of an unidentified personality disorder at the white school, but the Defendant’s present mental state is a state of normal category where the diagnosis of a unique mental disorder is not given, and there is no obstacle to the ability to distinguish things and decision-making ability. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state similar to the present at the time of the instant crime.

In light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant presented his opinion that the crime in this case is presumed (55th page of the trial record), the background leading to the crime in this case, the means and method of the crime, the process of the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to symptoms as alleged by the defendant at the time of the crime in this case, and therefore, this part of

B. In light of the circumstances that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; the victim N and E wanted to take the Defendant’s preference; the victim Q Q was returned to one of the damaged goods, but the instant crime was committed again on June 15, 2015, and was committed again on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to habitual larceny, and was released from the suspension of execution on June 15, 2015, and it was not good that the crime was committed; the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime of larceny and violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving). This is the Supreme Court.