A. At the time of preventing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to a stimulative disorder, etc.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the Defendant suffered from mental illness, such as divesive disorder, can be acknowledged. However, in light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of preventing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. The lower court sentenced one year of imprisonment in consideration of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, favorable to the Defendant, and the recommended type of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee.

There is no circumstance that the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, or that it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is, in full view of the facts that serve as conditions for sentencing in the trial, in particular, up to the trial of the lower court, the injury has been repaid, or no agreement has been reached with the victims, the applicable sentences, and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In addition, considering the circumstances and results of the crime of this case, the sentence of the court below is proper, and it is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.