A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as depression, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) 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, it is acknowledged that the defendant had been subject to pharmacologic treatment due to symptoms, such as depression and apprehension, at the time of the crime of this case, and in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case recognized by the record, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability or weak ability to discern things due to the above symptoms at the time, and thus, the above argument by the defendant

B. The rationale behind the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is that the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s perjury did not affect the outcome of the instant case, and the content of the Defendant’s testimony could be linked to his criminal punishment, which led to the Defendant’s failure to give testimony despite exercising the right to refuse to give testimony, which led to the instant crime.

However, perjury needs to be strictly punished for a crime that causes confusion and uncertainty in the judicial action of the State by interfering with the court's trial for finding the truth, and considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background leading to the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.