A. The Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as alcohol ozone, depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of mental or physical disability, the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized and treated for outpatient treatment due to symptoms, such as alcohol respect, depression, etc. from October 2012 is recognized.

However, in light of all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s speech and behavior, the specific contents of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be seen that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability cannot be accepted.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s health status is not good, and that the Defendant has no criminal record of larceny.

However, the defendant committed repeated crimes against many victims for a long time, and in particular, it is not good that the crime of fraud is committed by pretending traffic accidents.

The defendant has been punished two times by a fine due to fraud.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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