A. A. The Defendant was suffering from the reputation at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant was in a state of mental suffering from mental illness.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background of each of the instant crimes, method of the commission of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, which are acknowledged by the evidence of each of the instant cases, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have reached a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of the crime.

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

B. Although the Defendant appears to have an attitude of deceiving and opposing his mistake on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the instant crime is committed by the Defendant, who gets on three occasions at night, and intrudes into a high-rise apartment, using a bend window, and steals the goods and attempted to steals the goods on one occasion, and then steals the goods on one occasion, in light of the content and result of each crime, and the method of the crime, etc., the relevant crime is very heavy, and constitutes a same repeated crime, and the Defendant has the same criminal conviction.

Considering the above circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the defendant as well as the age, character, conduct, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed reasonable and too unreasonable.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.