On May 14, 2020, at around 11:00, the Defendant: (a) placed a new fact-finding 4 factoring amounting to KRW 9,000 of the market price owned by the victim C in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul; (b) 34,440, 37,140 of the market price owned by the victim C in a household; and (c) stolen one fact-finding 2 in a household.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged articles;

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, and the defense counsel’s assertion of the choice of imprisonment with labor, asserts to the purport that the punishment of this case should be mitigated on the grounds that the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder caused by the wall.

In principle, it is reasonable to view that a defect of nature, such as shock disorder, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment, as a matter of principle, does not correspond to a mental disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, even if a defect of nature, such as shock disorder, can be evaluated to be equal to a person with mental disorder within the original meaning because it is very serious and equivalent to that of the person with mental disorder, the crime must be deemed a crime caused by mental disorder.

(1) In light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of committing the instant crime, and the goods and method subject to the instant crime, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed as having seriously shocked and applied to the extent that it can be assessed as equal to a person with mental disorder, in light of the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of committing the instant crime.

Ultimately, it cannot be seen that the Defendant did not have reached a state where the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime several times, and that the defendant is prosecuted for larceny committed by the defendant during the suspended execution period.