A. A. Habitual denial of gender and the defendant with mental disability were in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime as a intellectual disabled person, and they cannot be recognized as habituality in the instant crime committed in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act requires that, in addition to the mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, the mental disorder caused by such mental disorder has a lack or decrease in the ability to discern things or control the action accordingly.

Therefore, even if a person with mental disability is a person with normal mental disability, if he/she had the ability to discern things and control behavior at the time of committing the crime, he/she cannot

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant is a disabled person of Grade II with intellectual disability, and that part of the criminal records of the defendant was committed under the lack of the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions.

However, in light of the fact that the police know about where cash is in the house subject to crime, and the precious metal stated that it was stolen only in cash after leaving the market, and that it was committed by a low-income rural community, and that it was attempted to commit a crime by stating that it was a cash in the vehicle within the city at night, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

B. According to habitual records, the defendant's refusal to do his/her work is recognized that he/she steals another's object from the time of his/her birth without the enemy who has a job to lead his/her livelihood, and that the defendant has no other means to lead his/her livelihood.

The court below stated above.