A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to depression.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the process of the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s conduct before and after the instant crime, etc., it does not appear that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. The instant case concerning the assertion of unfair sentencing is an attempted case where the Defendant attempted to steal the victim E’s property by destroying part of the structure at night and impairing the structure. Although it is recognized that the instant crime was committed in an attempted crime and did not actually inflict any damage on the victim, the Defendant has the record of criminal punishment, such as a prison punishment, due to the same crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime at once due to the same kind of crime, not only is the repeated period due to the same crime, but also is the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, but also the Defendant committed the instant crime at once after the release, and it is deemed that there is a need for severe punishment. In full view of all the sentencing conditions of the instant case’s argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.