A. There is no mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, nor fraud of property.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of facts.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disorder due to symptoms such as excessive circumstances, damage, etc.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the entire facts charged in the instant case can be recognized.

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

B. In light of the background and method of the instant crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability or mental disorder due to symptoms, such as excessive circumstances, etc. at the

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

C. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

Accordingly, the defendant's status.