A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorders, etc.

B. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, brought the goods of the deceased or the store to the effect that he resisted the business method of the instant deceased or the instant deceased, returned this again, and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution, 1 year of protection observation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the Defendant was under ex post facto medical treatment at around February 27, 2013 due to extreme disorder, and the Defendant has recently been hospitalized for two months due to stimulative disorder. However, in light of various circumstances such as the background of the instant crime and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B. According to the records on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant brought 1 thrts sold at the Baba shop in the judgment of the court below, brought wrts for the purpose of soing soup, brought wrts, brought wrts for the purpose of soing, brought wrts in a single shamp, a single shamper, a single shamper, a single shamper for a single brack, and entered into a bath and bracks. As such, the defendant suffered the above wrts, and the remainder of the goods carried by the defendant brought one wrts for each type of the goods used in a bath, it is reasonable to view that the defendant brought the above goods to be used as his own property, and therefore, the defendant's wracks.