The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in a state with weak mental and physical disorder due to a wall.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phenomenon where a person commits a crime because he/she was unable to suppress his/her impulse of judgment as to the claim of mental disability is likely to find out for the normal person. Thus, barring special group circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a person who has the above character defect requires acts that cannot be expected to restrain his/her impulse and to demand compliance with the law, barring special circumstances, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defect of the nature such as shock disorder does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, it is reasonable to deem that in principle, the defect of the nature, such as shock disorder, does not constitute a reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, even if the mental disorder is originally within the original meaning that impedes the ability to discern things, or if it is deemed that the cause of the disorder is equal to that of the person who has mental disorder within the original meaning, even though it is very serious, it shall be deemed that the crime of larceny is a crime caused by

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s claim for mental or physical disability is without merit, in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant was diagnosed on the following grounds: (b) even if examining the records of the instant case on June 10, 2010; (c) there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant was diagnosed on the grounds of shock disorder; (d) the process and method of committing each crime indicated in the records of the instant case; (b) the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime; and (c) the details and attitude of the Defendant’s statement made at an investigative agency; and (d) there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in a situation where it is deemed that the Defendant was deemed equal to

B. The argument on unfair sentencing is made.