A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the defendant had drinking prior to the crime of this case is recognized.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, including the following: (a) the Defendant tried to forcibly take money, such as taking the face of a victim E (persons aged 63 and physically handicapped class 2) who was seated in a park at the time of committing the crime; (b) the Defendant’s act before and after committing the crime; and (c) the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime; and (d) the Defendant’s act before and after committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., such as the circumstance leading up to the instant crime, the circumstance leading up to the instant crime, including the use of breath and plucking of the victim G (persons aged 56, E) who escaped from the scene as he was unable to achieve that intent, and the Defendant did not have any ability to discern things or have no intention to make decisions.

Shebly, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, (i) the victim G does not want punishment against the defendant; and (ii) the defendant acknowledges the crime and repents the mistake, etc. constitute favorable circumstances.

However, in light of the specific contents of the crime and the method of the crime, the nature of the crime is serious.

In addition, there is a heavy degree of violence shown by the defendant in the course of committing the crime, and there is a high possibility of criticism in terms of committing the crime against the elderly who are vulnerable to the crime, the fact that the defendant did not make any effort to recover damage, and the fact that the defendant was found missing without good faith after the prosecution.