A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to intellectual disability, etc.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant received a mental and physical treatment, and had a disability of class 3 of intellectual disability, and thus, was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

In light of the developments leading up to each of the instant crimes, means and methods, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the commission of the crime, which can be known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant recognized all of the criminal acts and divided his/her mistake, and that the defendant agreed with the victim H.

However, in light of the form and method of each of the crimes of this case, the liability for the crime of this case is grave, the theft of property by intrusion upon the victim's residence three times or more, the defendant not only has been punished for the same crime but also has committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the repeated crime period for the same kind of crime, the victims of fraud did not agree with the victim of the crime, and there is no change of circumstances that could otherwise determine the defendant's age, sex and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and the range of recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court, such as the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall not be acknowledged to be unfair because the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

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

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.