A. The Defendant, at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, was in a state of mental disability with mental disorder, such as both polar disorder, alcohol respect, and sulfur disorder.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant is deemed to have been treated with mental and physical illness prior to the instant crime, such as divesive disorder and proof of alcohol, but in full view of various circumstances, such as the details and content of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, which may be revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to distinguish things at the time of each of the instant crimes.

The judgment of the court below is just in the absence of mitigation of mental disorder against the defendant, and the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In particular, even if the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for August 23, 2018 with the same kind of crime on August 23, 2018, sentenced to imprisonment for ten months on August 13, 2019, repeated the same kind of crime within a short period after release, and taking into account all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s criminal records, age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.