A. A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to symptoms such as excessive conditions, patriarching, and patriarching, but the lower court did not recognize it.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim for mental disability, the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed by the intention on September 18, 2019 that his/her unknown injury was presumed clinically presumed, is not deemed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the background, means and methods of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s behavior before and after each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances following the instant crimes.

In addition, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended and enforced by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder may be mitigated." However, even if the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case in a state of mental disorder after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, even though he/she committed each of the crimes in the state of mental disorder after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, it is merely a ground for discretionary mitigation of punishment, and thus, the sentence has not been mitigated on this ground, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mitigation

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

3. Each of the crimes of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not likely to be a crime of injury or assault against a person on the face of life on the street without any justifiable reason; the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the same repeated crime period; the defendant has been punished three times for the same kind of crime; the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims; and the defendant did not reach an agreement.