A. Mental and physical weakness: the Defendant suffered from severe depression before committing the instant crime, and the Defendant was bruptly prevented from committing the instant crime under the state of mental and physical weakness.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not reduce the defendant's physical and mental weakness is illegal.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, it is recognized that the Defendant received a mental and physical therapy due to depression, depression, etc., but in light of various circumstances, such as the treatment period, frequency, the background, means, and actions before and after the crime, etc., the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weakness are without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness is rejected.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is the circumstance favorable to the defendant that the defendant reflects his fault in depth, completely recovered the damage through return of damaged articles, compensation, deposit, etc., the extent of damage is not much significant, and some of the victims agreed with the victim.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and was given several preferences on the ground of symptoms of depression.

In particular, on May 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for special larceny at the Gwangju District Court, and committed each of the crimes of this case before four months elapse.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances after the crime was committed, the age, conduct of sex, environment, etc. of the defendant, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's wrongful assertion of sentencing is not justified.

3. Conclusion.