A. At the time of committing a crime with mental disorder, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant has a intellectual disability in determining mental and physical weakness.

However, in light of the content, motive, method, and attitude of the defendant for each of the crimes in this case, it appears that the defendant was aware that his act was prohibited as being subject to punishment, and that the same crime was repeated, the decision-making ability was lacking due to the impossibility of suppressing impulses.

It is also difficult to see it.

Ultimately, the Defendant failed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above disability.

It is not recognized.

This part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. The lower court determined the unfair assertion of sentencing, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the victim’s injury was returned; or the victims did not want to punish the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was committed again during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime; and (d) other unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive or circumstance of the crime; (b) the motive or circumstance of the crime; (c) the method and method of the crime; and (d) the following circumstances

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances indicated in the arguments and records of this case, including the aforementioned circumstances considered by the court below, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, even if considering the circumstances that the defendant has a intellectual disability.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.