A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to activity, failure to pay attention, theft walls, etc.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mental disorder

A. In principle, it is reasonable to view that the defect of the nature, such as the shock adjustment disorder, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, even if the mental illness, which caused disorder to the ability to discern things above that is the reason for reduction or exemption, is the reason for escape, or even if the reason for escape is the same as that for shock disorder, it is so serious that it can be evaluated that it is equal to that of the person with mental disorder within the original meaning, the crime of larceny resulting from such defect shall be deemed to be a crime resulting from mental disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1541, May 24, 2002, etc.). (b) According to the records of this case, the defendant presented the opinion that the doctor of the above hospital was presented to the defendant for a prolonged period of time on June 29, 2017, 2).

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the records of this case, each of the instant crimes was not committed repeatedly on a specific day, but committed continuously on August 13, 2017, August 20, 2017, and August 21, 2017, and (b) the instant crime was committed solely by the Defendant, not solely by the Defendant, but by sharing the role with B, a co-defendant of the original judgment, and the occurrence of the instant crime by the prosecution.