2. On the grounds of appeal, the following facts are: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) in the case of larceny, the Defendant did not appear to have committed a larceny or paid the stolen cash at a convenience store as hospital expenses; and (c) some damaged items were seized and returned to the victim; and (d) the mental problem of the Defendant appears to have a significant impact on the instant crime, which is favorable to the Defendant.

In light of the fact that the defendant has a lot of history of punishment due to larceny (two times a punishment, three times a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor), that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspended sentence due to the same kind of larceny, that the defendant has no special dwelling and occupation, that there is no family member or not delivery of the defendant, that the defendant has committed the crime of this case while living in a old age or in a mental hospital or facility for a certain period, that the defendant has committed the crime of this case. In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant has a high possibility of repeating the crime such as theft or damage of things, that the sentence of a fine or a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor has no more significance in correcting the defendant's personality and behavior, and that there is a need for the defendant to have the time of reflectd by him by accepting the defendant in a correctional institution for a certain period.

In full view of the fact that the court below sentenced the lowest limit of statutory penalty prescribed in the special injury crime, and comprehensively considered the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means, consequence, etc. of the crime and all of the sentencing conditions in the records, including the above favorable circumstances, and unfavorable circumstances, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfair because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.