A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime, such as receiving mental treatment due to a mental disorder caused by depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant continued to suffer severe depression, apprehension, early distress, sporadic mental confusion, etc., and has been treated with a psychiatrist since July 30, 2007. The defendant continued to have serious pain and caused emotional confusion (e.g., island symptoms) and caused interference with the judgment power as a result of his/her use of narcotics control. However, in light of the circumstance of the crime, method, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., it is recognized that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, etc. caused by depression, etc. at the time of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit, since it seems that the defendant did not have reached a weak or weak state.

B. Although there are circumstances that may consider the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing both acknowledges and reflects the instant crime, and that the health condition is not good due to the blood plate decline, etc., the Defendant committed the instant crime at once again during the period of repeated crime even though he had already been sentenced to imprisonment due to the same kind of crime, and even if he had the record of being sentenced, he did not recover damage therefrom, and other circumstances that constitute the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the sentencing conditions appearing in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, are considered, it cannot be deemed unfair that the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. Thus, the

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is groundless.