A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss due to mental illness at the time of committing each of the larceny in the instant case.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (one month of imprisonment) is too heavy or too harsh and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of his mental and physical loss, the Defendant is deemed to have been in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as mental disorder, at the time of committing each of the larcenys in this case. However, in light of the circumstance leading to each of the larcenys, the method and method of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had reached a state of lacking capacity at the time.

B. In the instant case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be specifically considered when the appellate court judged the unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, in light of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence of the first instance court is too heavy or unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of the sentencing discretion.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair.

3. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.