A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to disorder in mixed apprehensions and depressions.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, from August 10, 201 to September 13, 2013, the Defendant was diagnosed by the members of the J mental Health Department of Busan East-gu, Busan-gu, and was given pharmacologic treatment and mental treatment after being diagnosed as a mixed unsatise and shock disorder, and then was given treatment again on February 22, 2017. However, even if the Defendant was provided treatment again to the above member on February 22, 2017, it is recognized that the Defendant was given relatively concrete and sound explanation of the crime committed by him from the investigative agency to the court, and in light of the process, method, and method of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime in this case, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had weak ability or ability to decide whether to change things at the time of the crime in this case.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, on the grounds that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and in full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed during the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing was too

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.