A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to shock disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the background, means, and method of the instant crime committed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and the conduct before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the shock disorder at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above mental disorder is without merit.

B. As stated in the reasoning of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the court below determined the punishment by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the defendant’s sentencing, and considering various sentencing conditions expressed in the records and trial process of this case, the court below’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in new sentencing conditions to deem that maintaining the sentencing of the court below is unfair in the trial. Thus, the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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

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