A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was a mentally weak person, who lacks the ability and ability to make decisions to discern things due to mental disorders.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the record of determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant is recognized as having registered the disabled person of Grade III with a mental disorder on December 26, 2016.

However, in full view of the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, means and methods, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, the details and the statement made by the investigative agency after the crime was committed, and the attitude of statement, etc., the said crime was committed under the circumstances where the Defendant was committed under the lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental disorder as above

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance court by destroying the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance does not change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, while the sentence of the first instance is within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by sufficiently considering the overall circumstances concerning the sentencing of the Defendant, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing when compared with the lower court’s judgment, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion