A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder, sussave, ex post facto sacrife, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phenomenon where a person commits a crime because he/she was unable to suppress his/her impulse as to the claim of mental disability is likely to find out even for a normal person. Thus, barring special group’s circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a person with the above character defect requires acts that cannot be expected to restrain his/her impulse and to demand compliance with the law, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defect of nature, such as shock disorder, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, it is reasonable to deem that in principle, the defect of nature, such as shock disorder, does not constitute a reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, even if the mental disorder of its original meaning, which causes disorder to the ability to discern things above, is very serious, or if it can be deemed that the cause of the defect is equal to that of the person with mental disorder in its original meaning even if it is very serious, it should be deemed that the crime of larceny caused by mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1541 Decided May 24, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the Defendant was entering and leaving school at universities, and the Defendant returned to and stolen department stores, etc. located across the country, even though there is no reason to do so in the department stores, etc., and the Defendant committed the commission of larceny, not by committing the commission of the commission of the commission of larceny, but by having the intention to commit the larceny from the beginning, rather than by committing the commission of the commission of the commission of larceny, it appears to be between the place of the commission of the crime, and the method of stealing the commission of the commission of the