A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was in the state of mental and physical disability due to shock disorder at the time of the instant crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s claim of mental suffering from a mental disorder is that the phenomenon where the Defendant was unable to suppress his/her impulse, and the fact that the Defendant was suffering from shock disorder at the time of committing each of the instant crimes can be acknowledged, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s occurrence of shock disorder is a demand for an act that is not expected to restrain his/her impulse and demand compliance with the law. Therefore, in principle, the same nature defect as shock disorder does not constitute mental and physical disorder, which is the reason for reduction of punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14512, Feb. 10, 201).

However, the content of the written opinion above is that it does not seem that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case. In full view of various circumstances such as the background leading up to the crime in this case, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder at the time of the crime in this case.

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

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor was not corrected at the Defendant’s right time with the care of hotel guests.