All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. (1) The Defendant was at the time of the instant case with a disability of Grade 2 with intellectual disability, and was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the defendant is a person with a disability of class 2 of intellectual disability is recognized.

However, in light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the court below, such as the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above intellectual disorder at the time of the crime in this case

It does not seem that there was any or weak state.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument about mental disorder cannot be accepted.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing was committed by the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request by Defendant D, and jointly with Defendant D and C, thereby tamping the victim E, thereby passing one punishment against the said victim. The instant crime was committed in combination with I, with the Defendant, by holding the said victim’s tobacco and the box, and then cutting it, with L and M, with the Defendant’s water purifiers, air conditioners, etc., which are owned by the victim’sO, and it was stolen, and the illegality of the instant act is not easy.

Furthermore, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime (a crime of intimidation) in 2012, and committed each of the crimes of this case again even though he was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment for special larceny on or around April 30, 2014.

In addition, considering the fact that the defendant has not yet reached an agreement with the victim E andO, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime.