In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

The defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") of the defendant's case of mistake of facts and the respondent for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") did not pay the price of food, etc. with permission from the Gu office at the

The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The court below's decision on the medical treatment and custody of the defendant is unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts against the defendant's case, the defendant argued to the same effect as this part of the appeal.

Therefore, the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning and determined that the defendant could sufficiently recognize that he had taken money from the victims by deceiving them as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, it is recognized that the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder caused by a deadly injury or illness.

However, the defendant has committed the crime of this case which has been committed several times during the period of repeated crime, even though he had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relations, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

The lower court, along with the fact that the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment several times due to fraud, etc. using a method similar to each of the crimes of this case, and that the Defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime.