A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not commit a theft of land A or cellular phones owned by E and a theft of G mobile phones owned by G, and the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the J as well as the Defendant committed an injury by scambling each item of the judgment with their respective parts written as to the injury of J.

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to emotional uneasiness disorder, etc.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as well as the fact that the statements made by investigation agencies of E, G, J and AC and the lower court in the investigation agencies of the E, G, J and AC and the lower court are specific and consistent, the lower court determined that the Defendant could steals the items owned by E and G and inflict injury on the part of the J by keeping each item.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The contents of the mental appraisal statement attached to the notification of the result of the mental diagnosis by the Medical Treatment and Custody Director on the request for mental diagnosis of the judgment party on the claim of mental disability are presumed to have been somewhat deteriorated in the decision-making capacity, such as that the defendant was deemed to have committed a crime temporarily because he/she was unable to suppress aggressive behavior and impulse due to the non-social personality disorder tendency and the multiple impacts caused by alcohol intake, but it is determined that the mental disorder was not the state of mental disorder.

However, even according to the above appraisal result, the defendant lacks decision-making ability at the time of committing the crime of this case.