Even though the defendant has committed the crime of this case in a state of mental and physical disability due to impulse impulse disorder, the court below committed an excessive violation.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court determined that the Defendant did not seem to have had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder caused by drinking alcohol, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the Defendant’s each crime of this case was committed; (b) the Defendant’s each crime of this case was committed by setting the traditional markets with a large amount of cash at the place of the crime; and (c) the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed a crime through a bus or taxi, etc., and was found to have committed a part of the relevant city’s traditional markets; and (b) the period of the crime was most complicated time; and (c) the Defendant’s specific act that embling the victims, such as preparing for the method of crime, lock and make; and (d) the Defendant did not appear to have had the ability to discern things or make decisions.

In addition to the aforementioned circumstances, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant left cash after theft of money and valuables, and prevented the tracking of dumping without using them; (ii) considering the circumstances after the crime, each of the crimes in this case appears to have been committed under a fatal plan rather than dynamicly; and (iii) the defendant stated that the mental appraisal document prepared in the process of the previous thief trial against the defendant had the desire to take the wall after drinking, and that the case did not have drinking.

(a)bet;