A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental health and injury.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, means, and method of each of the crimes of this case, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime was committed, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is not deemed that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes of this case.

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

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, the fact that the defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime, and the defendant is not aware of the crime of this case even during the period of repeated crime, and the degree of criticism is great.

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

3. In conclusion, 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.

Provided, That Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure shall apply.