A. A. A person has committed the instant crime in a state of mental disability due to mental retardation.

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

2. Determination

A. It appears that the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of de facto exploitation. However, in light of the content and method of the instant crime, etc., it seems that the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. There are extenuating circumstances to consider the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, such as: (a) the confession of and reflects on the Defendant’s crime; and (b) the occurrence of the instant crime by drinking in a state of economic difficulty.

However, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant has been convicted of having committed the instant crime for the same type of crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the same repeated offense period; and (c) there is a need to isolate hallucinogenic substances for a certain period to prevent recidivism, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, environment, and details of the crime; and (d) the circumstances that are assessed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and the details of the crime; and (e) there is no evidence newly discovered during the course of the trial of the sentencing of the Party, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence is too too too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.