A. A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder because he was drunk at the time of committing each crime of the 2013 Go-Ma16 Incident, and the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of each evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the claim of mental retardation, the circumstance under which the defendant invadedd the legal parties as stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below and assaulted the victim D and stolen property at the time of the theft of property. However, the defendant arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender and asked the victim for the motive of the crime. "The victim resisted the victim by resisting the victim's false statement." Furthermore, the defendant made a detailed statement about the details and contents of each of the above crimes, and even after the above crimes were committed, the defendant made a statement by consistently and consistentizing the situation at the time of each of the above crimes, and taking full account of the details and method of each of the crimes in this case, the defendant's ability to change things or make decisions is weak.

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

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, however, have a history of 15 times or punishment for the same crime, and the defendant committed a second offense without being aware of it even during the period of repeated crime, and the theft of the crime of No. 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below was recovered from the wind that is arrested on the job, but has not yet been recovered due to the reason that the defendant was not disclosing his whereabouts in the crime of No. 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant would not drink the victim D in the future.